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

PoliPundit ^ | 3/5/07 | Duncan Hunter

[calcowgirl]

Chris Sanchez definitely met with OAD in Mexico and presented the immunity agreement. The text you highlight also caught my eye because he says he talked to Agent Sanchez with Chris (so nice that Special Agent Chris Sanchez and drug smuggler OAD are on a first name basis!) It first said to me that the three of them met, but it could have been a conference call (or 3-way call).

There is some testimony outlining various contacts. We may be able to piece it together.

As to the "they gave it to me", I discount that and write it off to an interpreter. By "they", he very well could have just meant the US government.

As to cahoots... that's a strange one. Maybe... or maybe R.Sanchez was working his own angle. Do you remember reading the part about when OAD found out a lawsuit had been filed? (It was filed in May 2005, yet on the witness stand in Feb/Mar 2006 he said he only found out about it in the prior few days--or something like that.)

[AndrewC]

As to the "they gave it to me", I discount that and write it off to an interpreter. By "they", he very well could have just meant the US government.

I don't think so. "They" means the people with whom he is talking. This is translated from Spanish and it may have been ....

And then, when I talked to Agent Sanchez ...., with Chris, then they explained it to me, and then they gave it to me.

But I find it hard to believe he meant an organization rather that the individuals with whom he was conversing.

As to the three way call, someone is lying on the stand, because Rene Sanchez limits his interaction in the case with the contacts he mentions in his testimony. He never mentions a three way call and limits his contacts with Davila to three.

[AndrewC]

Speed used	Wind Speed		Angle degrees	Fraction applied	Crosswind FPS	Time to clear 15 feet seconds		MPH	Trail
2	2		0	0.00	0
	4		5	0.09	0.255656845	58.67		5	59.61404
	6		10	0.17	0.509367988	29.45		10	119.2281
	8		15	0.26	0.759202532	19.76		15	178.8421
	10		20	0.34	1.003259087	14.95		20	238.4562
	12		25	0.42	1.239680234	12.10		25	298.0702
	14		30	0.50	1.466666667	10.23		30	357.6842
	16		35	0.57	1.68249088	8.92		35	417.2983
	18		40	0.64	1.885510322	7.96		40	476.9123
	20		45	0.71	2.074179891	7.23		45	536.5263
			50	0.77	2.2470637	6.68		50	596.1404
			55	0.82	2.402845997	6.24		55	655.7544
			60	0.87	2.540341184	5.90		60	715.3685
			65	0.91	2.658502842	5.64
			70	0.94	2.756431688	5.44
			75	0.97	2.833382424	5.29
			80	0.98	2.888769409	5.19
			85	1.00	2.922171114	5.13
			90	1.00	2.933333333	5.11
					1.845202955	8.12918707

The above excel calculation is an analysis of winds. The "Wind Speed" column is not used but is there in preparation for analysis of winds up to 20 MPH.

The speed used column is the speed the other calculations use. It is in MPH. So this sheet is for a 2 MPH wind. The angle column is in degrees off of the nose of the vehicle. It is only necessary to calculate the angles up to 90 degrees off of the nose since only the crosswind value is needed and the left or right direction relative to the vehicle is irrelevant. Only the magnitude of the crosswind is necessary to calculate the time needed to clear 15 feet. I used 15 feet since the canal road was that wide and only about half of the road needs to be cleared, so the calculation covers up to a ~30 foot wide dirt road.

The fraction column shows the fraction of the total wind, in this case 2 MPH, that is crosswind. This value is then used in calculating the next column "Crosswind FPS". This value is in feet per second and not in MPH which are the units used for the initial value. The reason for this is that the road is measured in feet and the time separating vehicles will be in seconds. The crosswind is then used to calculate the time to clear 15 feet, and that calculation result is in seconds. At the bottom of the "crosswind" column is the average crosswind speed using the angles. IOW unless the wind is straight down the road, there is an appreciable crosswind component which will clear the road. This average is used in the next column at the bottom to calculate the time it takes for the average crosswind just discussed to clear 15 seconds. In this case, the time is around 8 seconds for a 2 MPH wind. The final column uses the time calculated to show the distance in trail that a vehicle would require to be for the dust to clear the road. So for a 2 MPH wind, a vehicle travelling at 30 MPH would have a clear view when the vehicle is 358 feet behind the dust source(or 8 seconds behind).

The point that can be made is that the likely situation is that for a 2 MPH wind, Vasquez would have been around 8 seconds behind Juarez on the dirt road.(No matter what Vasquez's vehicle speed was). For a 5 MPH wind, the value is 3.25 seconds. And for a 10 MPH wind, the value is 1.6 seconds. This all tells me that when considering any wind and the dust, Vasquez will arrive within 10 seconds of Juarez. The beaufort scale follows:

Beaufort number	Wind speed				Mean wind speed (kt / km/h / mph)	Description	Wave height		Sea conditions	Land conditions
	kt	km/h	mph	m/s			m	ft
0	0	0	0	0-0.2	0 / 0 / 0	Calm	0	0	Flat.	Calm. Smoke rises vertically.
1	1-3	1-6	1-3	0.3-1.5	2 / 4 / 2	Light air	0.1	0.33	Ripples without crests.	Wind motion visible in smoke.
2	4-6	7-11	4-7	1.6-3.3	5 / 9 / 6	Light breeze	0.2	0.66	Small wavelets. Crests of glassy appearance, not breaking	Wind felt on exposed skin. Leaves rustle.
3	7-10	12-19	8-12	3.4-5.4	9 / 17 / 11	Gentle breeze	0.6	2	Large wavelets. Crests begin to break; scattered whitecaps	Leaves and smaller twigs in constant motion.
4	11-16	20-29	13-18	5.5-7.9	13 / 24 / 15	Moderate breeze	1	3.3	Small waves.	Dust and loose paper raised. Small branches begin to move.
5	17-21	30-39	19-24	8.0-10.7	19 / 35 / 22	Fresh breeze	2	6.6	Moderate (1.2 m) longer waves. Some foam and spray.	Smaller trees sway.

[calcowgirl]

FYI, from Kanof's opening statement:

Vol 6, p.90

10 On February 17th, 2005, it was a very cloudy day. In
11 fact, I think the National Weather Service said, that on a
12 scale of one to ten, it was a ten, meaning complete cloud
13 cover, the whole day. And it was also windy. The high peak
14 speeds that day were about 24 miles an hour.

[AndrewC]

Right, that is what I am building on. Compean testifies that it is windy. Kanof tries to establish that it was windy to scatter the casings. Another point is that Davila testifies when he is driving into town that his speed on dirt road(s), they do not have a posted speed limit, is around 35 to 40 mph. He estimates his speeds on the chase portion because he does not believe that the speedometer was working. Well, here is the historical data for El Paso, 20 miles up the road.

« Previous Day

Daily Summary for February 17, 2005

Next Day »

Actual

Average

Record

Temperature

Mean Temperature

54 °F / 12 °C

51 °F / 10 °C

Max Temperature

59 °F / 15 °C

64 °F / 17 °C

79 °F / 26 °C (1902)

Min Temperature

48 °F / 8 °C

38 °F / 3 °C

12 °F / -11 °C (1910)

Degree Days

Heating Degree Days

11

15

Month to date heating degree days

280

278

Since 1 July heating degree days

1911

2017

Cooling Degree Days

0

0

Month to date cooling degree days

0

2

Year to date cooling degree days

0

2

Growing Degree Days

2 (Base 50)

Moisture

Dew Point

43 °F / 6 °C

Average Humidity

62

Maximum Humidity

72

Minimum Humidity

51

Precipitation

Precipitation

0.00 in / 0.00 cm

0.02 in / 0.05 cm

0.68 in / 1.73 cm (1905)

Month to date precipitation

1.51

0.28

Year to date precipitation

2.17

0.73

Snow

Snow

0.00 in / 0.00 cm

0.80 in / 2.03 cm

- ()

Month to date snowfall

T

Since 1 July snowfall

1.0

Snow Depth

0.00 in / 0.00 cm

Sea Level Pressure

Sea Level Pressure

30.00 in / 1016 hPa

Wind

Wind Speed

8 mph / 13 km/h (East)

Max Wind Speed

18 mph / 29 km/h

Max Gust Speed

24 mph / 39 km/h

Visibility

10 miles / 16 kilometers

Events

T = Trace of Precipitation, MM = Missing Value

Source: NWS Daily Summary

That was probably where Kanof got her 24 MPH. Using the data from this report, the value is probably a 2 second separation in consideration for the winds. I.E. They gotta be close together.

[AndrewC]

You can use the chart to determine the values for 1 P.M. Fabens is 20 or so miles away. You can see that 1 P.M. had among the highest winds that day.

[erton1]

What I am trying to convey to is that the stipulation is evidence admitted at the trial which proves up the elements of the offense of assault. It was basically conceded by the defense, and it meets the burden of proof of the assault for the prosecution, save the location of the offense. Of course the prosecutor wouldn't expect to prevail with just the stipulation, but it does help them tremendously, IMHO. The burden at trial has now shifted to the defense to overcome the prosecution's prima facie case and prove up their defense of legal justification. It also is strong evidence of the firearm charge which carried the 10 year mandatory minimum. The prosecution still needed to put on evidence of the tampering charges.

For the justification defense to prevail the defense must prove that the defendants had a reasonable belief that they were in imminent fear of serious bodily injury or death at the time of the assault. Don't forget that the assault occurred as OAD was fleeing away from the defendants and towards and approximately 200 yards from the border. The "state of mind" of the defendants for this defense to work is not in the ditch, that "threat" had passed, nor was it later when they found the drugs. It is when they are chasing and shooting at the guy. Unfortunately for the defendants, Ramos' shot struck OAD. The only explanation given by the defense as to why the defendants felt threatened while OAD was fleeing back to Mexico was the "shiny black object." This was a weak explanation that was obviously rejected by the jury, and most objective observers.

If you think OAD, Juarez and Vasquez were all lying through their teeth, the defense sure did a lousy job of showing that to the jury. If the jury thought that 3 of the govt. main witnesses were lying through their teeth on the stand, they would have never convicted these guys.

[AndrewC]

If the jury thought that 3 of the govt. main witnesses were lying through their teeth on the stand, they would have never convicted these guys.

So your bottom line is that juries never make mistakes, only lawyers do? That may be a fair assessment.

[erton1]

Do you believe that the defendants had the legal right to shot OAD as he was fleeing away from them to Mexico?

[erton1]

No, I don't think the jury made a mistake in this case. That was not the bottom line of the case, the bottom line is that the defendants committed the offense of assault,as you have already conceded, (along with several other crimes) and they were NOT legally justified in their actions.

[Paperdoll]

PING

[AndrewC]

Do you believe that the defendants had the legal right to shot OAD as he was fleeing away from them to Mexico?

Yes, in their view and following their testimony. Davila advanced towards Compean for over 30 feet when ordered to stop. He advanced right up to Compean who was alone on the south side of the ditch. Compean's only options to stop someone who has been ordered to stop and refuses to do that, is to either shoot that person, let that person advance to him unchallenged, or attempt to engage that person while holding the shotgun. Compean did not advance down towards Davila, and neither did Ramos. They ordered Davila to stop. He didn't. I won't go step by step any further into the testimony by the BPA, but you can read their side of the story. Now, what happened on the other side of the levee, is disputed by Davila. However, his wound is evidence that his body was at an angle to the left with respect to Ramos. That corroborates what Compean and Ramos testified they saw. Their viewpoint then justifies their actions. You don't give free shots to the bad guys.

[AndrewC]

No, I don't think the jury made a mistake in this case. That was not the bottom line of the case, the bottom line is that the defendants committed the offense of assault,as you have already conceded, (along with several other crimes) and they were NOT legally justified in their actions

I have conceded no such thing. The police did not assault that shooter in the mall in Utah, but no doubt one of their bullets was in him.

[AndrewC]

			Davila	Ramos	Juarez	Vasquez
Offset from Davila			0	60	120	220
Avg speed MPH			45	45	30	30
Dirt Road Length			5280	5280	5280	5280
Avg speed FPS			66	66	44	44
Time to travel			80	80.91	122.73	125
Time delta			0	0.91	42.73	45

This excel calculation shows the results for travel down the dirt road at those given speeds and intial separations.

The top line shows the separations of the vehicles with respect to Davila on hitting the dirt road. I measured it from the satellite picture and arrived at a 4200 foot measurement. Mr Loya drive the distance and measured it using his odometer and it was exactly a mile. I used his data. The speeds are reasonable estimations from the testimony of Davila and allowing for Juarez and Vasquez to be extra cautious. What the result shows is that Ramos will arrive as Davila exits the van. If the other two agents drive as cautiously as Bob J wants them to, they will arrive around 42 and 44 seconds after Ramos does. According to Mr. Loya it took Ramos from 39 to 45 seconds to run from his car to where Compean was.

Juarez and Vasquez both testified that they never saw Ramos.

[erton1]

OAD advancing towards Compean in the ditch has nothing to do with whether the LATER assault was justified. Nobody disputes that OAD was fleeing when he was shot. Their testimony is rather weak when it comes to their legal justification defense. You seem focused on the actions in the ditch which does not even come within the definition of justification for a criminal offense. First their belief that they were in imminent threat of serious BI or death must be reasonable.I don't think the jury (nor do I) ever believed that their "view" and testimony was reasonable regarding the shooting that occurred while OAD was fleeing. If you think an LEO has the right to use deadly force against someone who is fleeing and not a threat, then you are simply wrong. It takes more than their "view point" to meet the legal standard to justify their actions. It must be reasonable under the particular fact situation. Shooting a fleeing unarmed person not going to be considered reasonable or justified, outside of strong exigent circumstances(and a "shiny black object" is not one of those) no matter if you are in NYC or the border. Even if take the defendant's testimony as the gospel truth, their unreasonable viewpoint does not give them the legal justification for the assault. This case has nothing to do with 'free shots to the bad guys.' There NO evidence that OAD, or anyone, was shooting at the defendants. That is another red herring you like to use to try to justify your position.

[erton1]

You just love comparing apples to oranges when you you have no retort to a post.A shooting in a mall in Utah has nothing to do the facts of this case. Totally irrelevant. Tell me one element of the offense of assault that you do not concede was committed by the defendants?

[AndrewC]

0	60	120	220
35	35	25	25
5280	5280	5280	5280
51.33	51.33	36.67	36.67
102.86	104.03	147.27	150.00
0	1.17	44.42	47.14


0	60	120	220
50	50	40	40
5280	5280	5280	5280
73.33	73.33	58.67	58.67
72.00	72.82	92.05	93.75
0	0.82	20.05	21.75

0	60	120	220
40	40	35	30
5280	5280	5280	5280
58.67	58.67	51.33	44.00
90.00	91.02	105.19	125.00
0	1.02	15.19	35.00

More calculations, but remember only a couple of seconds is likely required for the dust to clear.

[AndrewC]

Tell me one element of the offense of assault that you do not concede was committed by the defendants?

Name the elements. Name the facts of this case.

[erton1]

Just proves my previous post, I stand by my statement that you have conceded that the defendants committed assault. You know the facts of the case. I'm sure I don't have to refresh your memory.

[AndrewC]

OAD advancing towards Compean in the ditch has nothing to do with whether the LATER assault was justified.

It certainly does. It establishes that Davila is a threat in the minds of the officers. And if Ramos could hit someone with one shot, so could have Davila. No free shots. If everything was so cut and dried why did the jury spend more than 5 minutes coming to a decision? And little red rings on the tips of toy pistols are there for a reason.