This lonely dirt road is where it all began.
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 stand "there" forever if you like, I have conceded no such thing. You should also know the facts. I asked you to name all of the elements of assault, and the facts of this case. I have not conceded that they commited any crime to you. I said it was Ramos bullet in Davila.
You cannot prove Davila did not have a pistol because he took it with him when he fled to Mexico. /ertonl mode
So every police officer that shoots a criminal commits assault!?
Sorry, but you are absolutely wrong regarding the legal defense of justification. I don't believe you know what you are talking about. There was no threat once they are out of the ditch, and OAD is running away from them at whatever distance you have calculated. They can pursue, but they cannot use deadly force in this fact situation, no matter how much you disagree. Of course if they had just followed the law, and the regulations of the border patrol, they would not be in prison now.
I think the jury was out for a typical time for a case of this nature. Two defendants, ten count indictment against both, I would be a little surprised if they came to verdict sooner. They never notified the court that they were deadlocked or even had questions for the judge. Appears to me to be a fairly typical jury.
They can pursue and they can fire at a person threatening them with a weapon. He took it with him.
IN a hurry to leave and made mistake. Which element do you not concede was committed by the defendants?
And I "told" you that definition is not a crime as you stated. Police shoot criminals.
I like the presentation approach. I think your speed limits are off though. Ramos testified that he was going about 30 mph on the dirt road. From my recollection of the testimony, I didn't see that it supports a theory that Juarez and Vasquez were going significantly slower than the vehicles in front of them, only that they might have dropped back due to the dirt being kicked up.
Your calculations tend to support a theory that neither Juarez nor Vasquez were there until Ramos was over the levee. Yet Juarez testifies he arrived "seconds" behind the van. And Ramos and OAD both testify that multiple agents were already there when OAD was in the ditch. (I'm just thinking out loud here).
On a slighly different note, another point for time comparison is Mendoza. He first sees the van and BPAs when he is 1/2 mile west of Jess Harris Road as the caravan is approaching the dirt road. He is on Island, a paved road and estimates that he is 1/2 mile west from JH Road. He also testified that he watched the cars as they hit Wingo Reserve Road, where it turns to dirt (He estimated the distance between vehicles at 2-3 car lengths for Ramos and Juarez, and 5-6 for Vasquez). Looking at google maps, the distance from where he described on Island Road, to Jess Harrris, looks more like 4000 feet than 1/2 mile, which would put him 45 seconds behind the caravan if he was travelling at 60 MPH (or 61 seconds behind at 45 MPH). If we use his 1/2 mile estimate, he would be behind the caravan by only 30 seconds at 60 MPH (or 40 seconds at 60 MPH). These relative time estimates are all assuming he travels on the paved road, and that he then travelled the dirt portion at a speed similar to the others.
What's this?
15 Q. Okay. What did you see in his left hand that day? 16 A. I believed I saw a gun. 17 Q. Okay. Are you -- 18 MS. STILLINGER: May the record reflect that the 19 witness demonstrated turning around and shooting backwards? 20 MS. KANOF: Excuse me, Your Honor, I would object, 21 unless it reflected with his left hand. 22 MS. STILLINGER: I'm sorry? 23 MS. KANOF: I would object, unless it was accurately 24 described to the record that he did it with his left hand. 25 MS. STILLINGER: That would be fine, Your Honor. 1 THE COURT: All right. So noted. 2 BY MS. STILLINGER: 3 Q. And is that what you saw, was -- I mean, I know you used 4 your left hand. Is that what you saw? 5 A. That's what I saw. 6 Q. Okay. Are you absolutely sure that he had a gun in his 7 hand? 8 A. On that day, at that time, I believe so. 9 Q. Okay. Were you absolutely 100 percent sure? 10 A. At that time, I was. 11 Q. Okay. How about today, looking back on it? Do you think 12 he had a gun or do you know? 13 A. I can't be sure. 14 Q. Okay. You can't be sure. What do you think? 15 A. He had something in his hand. 16 Q. Okay. Now, what did you do when the suspect made the 17 motion that you just demonstrated? What did you do? 18 A. I picked up my gun and fired.
It is not a crime as you have described. And I've answered your question. I'm not on the stand, and unlike Ramos lawyer's, I'm not about to let you badger me. I've answered your question whether you like my answer or not. Police shoot criminals and that in and of itself is not a crime. So if you don't like it, buzz off, but I will continue to show that the prosecution's witnesses are lying whether you understand it or not.
At this point, the Border Patrol still has an obligation to apprehend, right? You're not saying they should have just let him go and given up, are you? They have a suspect, who has led them on a 10-15 minute car chase, ditched their vehicle, refused to comply with the officer's commands to "stop", and failed to yield to the threat of force (shotgun), instead constantly approaching the officer in a threatening manner--raising his hands toward the officer (in what Compean perceived to be an attempted "lunge" and him and the shotgun). Should they have just stepped back and let him flee back to Mexico without any further attempt to apprehend him? (And please... don't tell me that doesn't justify them "shooting an unarmed man in the back who just wants to go home to Mexico"... I'm just asking if you think they should have undertaken a foot pursuit.)
They can pursue, but they cannot use deadly force in this fact situation, no matter how much you disagree.
Can they use deadly force if they fear for their life?
Of course if they had just followed the law, and the regulations of the border patrol, they would not be in prison now.
What specific "law" are you referring to here?
I thought the prosecution had the burden to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Are you saying that Compean and Ramos are presumed guilty unless they can prove their innocence? How does the burden switch? Why doesn't the prosecution have to prove that it wasn't justified?
This lonely dirt road is where it all began.
Your analysis is entirely correct. I used the numbers because Bob J insisted that dust was involved and they were driving slower. I allowed that for Juarez and Vasquez, but Ramos testified he could see the van through the dust and Davila testified he could see the lights through the dust. He also testified that he could see the dust blowing off of the road. Mr. Loya thinks that neither Juarez or Vasquez were at the scene when the ditch encounter occurred. Those numbers support that.
That road sure looks like the one I drove on. I had to drive 40 or over to produce "blinding" dust.
The road is probably not much wider than 12 feet.
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.