Posted on 09/24/2007 6:15:44 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
The question was not posed to me, but I was interested in your response.
Apparently you would prefer to mock others and dodge Ajnin's question.
"Do you know what the job of a prosecutor is?"
"It's always frustrating when people are calling you names and spreading misinformation in a very public setting when there's an ongoing investigation," Sutton said. "Of course I'm being criticized because I haven't put Aldrete in prison yet. And of course, the reason he's not in prison is because the two agents, instead of doing their job, shot at him 15 times, hit him, lied about it, covered it up and filed a false report. But my team is still trying to make a case on him."
“And, if true, what is the significance of that fact to you?”
He was making the point that the press story got facts wrong and that you can’t necessarily believe everything you read in a newspaper(a notion that would be a first here on FR).
Jeez, this is like dealing with 10 year olds.
But "specific" is not what you said, nor what I responded to. And how do you figure that any justification to use their guns, ceased? They are law enforcement officers, tasked with enforcing the law. They had a suspect they believed to be hauling drugs, who had just led them on a 10 mile high speed chase involving most (if not all) of the entire Fabens border patrol office, and failed to stop when ordered to do so, instead advancing on an officer armed with a shotgun.
Yet you think there was "no danger" to the officers or the community? They should have just let him go?
You know, we’ve been doing this for months now and all along I thought that you were probably the most logical of all the mob trying to exonerate R&C (not saying too much, BTW). But I look at this exchange and I have to shake me head. I have to wonder if the IQ in FR has dropped considerably in the last year or two.
First, this says NOTHING about the mystery reports that you allege. It doesn’t tell us who wrote them (DEA?), what they contained or what, if any, exculpatory evidence they may contain about OAD and the second load.
Second, you state the Suttons “boys” got them squashed when they obviously were submitted to the congressional groups investigating the incident and even more obvious is the fact that it wasn’t “Sutton’s boys” who did anything with them but DIANNE FEINSTEIN herself, a R&C supporter, who asked, no DEMANDED, that they not be released!
Third, it is also obvious that the reason they didn’t want them to be released was because they could compromise an ongoing investigation and “ “impact potential cooperating sources or even put witnesses in peril.”
Now let me ask you question, and you may have to engage your brain for a second, a brain that appears to be a little rusty, if the initial “leak” had to do with OAD and his connection to the potential second load, and Dianne Feinstein (an R&C supporter) makes a passioned plea not to release any more details because it could “impact potential cooperating sources or even put witnesses in peril.”, WHO DO YOU THINK THE “COOPERATING SOURCES AND WITNESSES” could be?
I’ve stated several times in the past that I believed, due to weird things that were mentioned and said in the press by many parties involved, that part of the deal with OAD was that he also continue to work as an informant for the DEA to help put away other drug runners.
IMO, what you’ve presented at best fails to support the representations you’ve made to us and at worst discredits you as a source for any information, but supports my belief that OADS was in fact working as a DEA informant during the activity of the so called “second load”.
“The question was not posed to me, but I was interested in your response.”
Uhhh, DW, you reposted it and demanded an answer. It in fact becomes your question as well. If you don’t believe this it only adsd more evidence to the suggestion that you have problems with comprehension.
Aldrete-Davila testified that he crossed through the river where the van was seen.
However, Chris Sanchez testified that the initial written reports from Rene Sanchez said Aldrete-Davila entered near Las Pompas (north of the Fabens BP territory—but up near Ysleta where there is a border crossing).
There is no way to know for sure, unless you take the word of Aldrete-Davila (as he testified—not as he previously reported to Rene Sanchez)
BTW - I answered it, if you don’t like my answer, TS.
If on the other hand you would like to answer it for me, knock yourself out, you seem to be good at twisting things people say or putting words in their mouth.
Sutton has finally admitted there was a second load, reluctantly. Congress has the information, not just Fienstien.
Duncan Hunter: .... he was involved with another load of drugs coming into the country and that’s one place where I think, you know, what’s happened with Johnny Sutton and happens with prosecutors a lot is in the end they just want to win.
GLENN: Johnny Sutton said to me — and he’s going to be on the program tomorrow — he said to me face to face, eyeball to eyeball, we don’t have any evidence that he was bringing drugs over the second time.
HUNTER: Okay, I tell you what, I’m going to give you — I’m going to send you the police reports that I have on the second load of drugs. I’ll send that to you so you’ve got that when you talk to him.
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/07182007.shtml
Except... it was already across the border.
El Paso private investigator Freddie Bonilla investigated Aldrete-Davilla's drug van. Bonilla is a retired homicide investigator with the El Paso Police Department. Subsequent to that he was chief of detectives for the El Paso Sheriff's Department. For the past 22 years, Bonilla has been a private investigator.Bonilla tracked down a Mexican who buys U.S. cars in Colorado. The Mexican owner subsequently sold the vehicle in Juarez, Mexico. A check on the Texas license plates would not have shown the vehicle as stolen.
Read again, Bob. Those are statements from DOJ, Sutton's associates, not Feinstein..
DOJ put out the word that no one should further disseminate the information. The media has seen the report and published the fact multiple times. Congressman Rohrabacher has seen it and testified about it.
I'll ignore the rest of your personal insults.
I demanded nothing. I asked if you were going to answer it.
It in fact becomes your question as well.
Actually, I was hoping to see an honest discourse between you and Ajnin. Absent a sincere answer from you, that is obviously not possible.
If you don’t believe this it only adsd more evidence to the suggestion that you have problems with comprehension.
Resorting to personal insults again? How quaint (and tiresome).
Trying to defend the indefensible does that.
Thank you Aunt B.
Ping to above regarding reports of the “Second Load” from those who have viewed the record (Add Duncan Hunter to the list).
You got it!
Uhh, because the law say so? Once the “dangerously speeding vehicle” stopped and the driver exited, THAT specific dangerous situation to the community and officers had ceased to exist.
“They are law enforcement officers, tasked with enforcing the law.”
Yes, and that task is to apprehend crime suspects for trial and not to act as judge, jury and executioner by shooting them in the back.
“They had a suspect they believed to be hauling drugs, who had just led them on a 10 mile high speed chase involving most (if not all) of the entire Fabens border patrol office, and failed to stop when ordered to do so, instead advancing on an officer armed with a shotgun.”
The suspected vehicle was a blue mini van, OAD was driving a light grey full size van. At that point they should have been suspicious of their suspicions. I don’t believe the chase was ten miles, if it was testified to I don’t remember it but my impression from the transcripts was it was more like 2-3 miles. It doesn’t really matter but does show your propensity for exaggerating specific details of this incident to your dubious advantage.
Next, it was 3 vehicles involved in the chase, not the entire Fabens BP force which I believe is composed of 30-50 personnel. Most of the officers and all the supervisors on the scene arrived AFTER the shooting.
“failed to stop”
I think we all have agreed there was a short high speed pursuit.
“instead advancing on an officer armed with a shotgun. Yet you think there was “no danger” to the officers or the community?”
So you got this skinny mexican looking guy is in a ditch with at least 2 border patrol officers looking down from either side of the top of the ditch with their service revolvers and/or shotguns trained on the perp. The perp is standing in a ditch, he moves up out of the ditch toward the officer with the shotgun, raises his hands, the officer then tries to butt him in the head with the butt of his shotgun.
Yes, at this point I see NO immediate danger to the community and little or no danger to the officers. Evidently, neither did R&C because not once during the entire incident did they tell “shots” or “gun” to the other officers to let them know the perp was armed (or possibly armed) and that THEIR lives might be in danger.
Not once. Even after it was over when questioned by the supervisors did R&C mention that OAD had or that they thought he had a gun. Not until weeks later when the cover up was blown and it looked like R&C were going to be subjected to an investigation about the incident.
“They should have just let him go?”
This is why you’re such a snarky little toad. No one, not me, not Charles not anyone taking the laws side of this issue has ever once said the officers should have let OAD go. IF in fact they had done their job and apprehended OAD as they should have we wouldn’t be here discussing it.
What I would like is for these LEO’s, any LEO’s to not think they are above the law and can unholster their weapon and start shooting away like it was Dodge City, to think they can shoot and kill any suspect that pisses them off and to then think they will get away with it by simply claiming, even weeks later, “I saw a black shiny object”.
Is that too much to ask? Does that make me a Sutton loving toady? Des that make me some kind of danger to society?
I would contend that it is people like YOU that are the threats to society. Your blind devotion in supporting what is obviously a bad shoot just because the target was a drug mule SUSPECT or a mexican or an illegal is exactly the kind of rationalization that allows the despots of the world to arise, it allows organizations like the gestapo, the SS, the brownshirts, to operate with impunity. All because the target of of the violence THIS TIME is part of a class that you hate.
The problem is that kind of authority abhors a vacuum. You may approve of it because it may start out targeting a class of people you dislike or hate, but it always moves on to others and eventually to groups you may identify with. By then, it’s too late to stop it and you wonder, like the German people did, “what have I done?”
I do understand the Mexican authorities wanting to be informed/involved when situations like this happen. What I don’t understand is U.S. authorities willingness to jump through hoops to keep Mexico happy. Which we do over and over in many instances.
Bob, you keep stating the same things that have been refuted, over and over again. This, for example:
"The suspected vehicle was a blue mini van, OAD was driving a light grey full size van."The suspected vehicle was NOT a mini van. Read the transcript again. I called you on this a month ago when you tried to create controversy about the van and all you could do is retreat and say "let's not get bogged down." I'll say it again:
Now you're going to quote the truth-limited Oscar Juarez? Even though his testimony was refuted by both Vasquez (who said he called out a full sized van) and DHS Investigator Chris Sanchez (who listened to the recorded radio traffic and Compean describe a Blue van)? Not to mention that Juarez himself testified that subsequent radio traffic by Compean confirmed that he was following the correct van (NOT a minivan) and the transcript shows that it was Juarez who ASKED if it was a minivan, not Compean who said it was.
...you’re such a snarky little toad...
ENOUGH of your insults!
Nothing you or CCG have posted has proven or disproven this. You see statements that indicate a report exists then insert your own guesses about what the report contains (that you’ve never seen) as if they were fact.
If either of you have any other factual, evidentiary information about this report, other than anecdotal quotes or vague statements from the media, show it to us so we can all know what is in it.
But please quit inserting your own opinions about it and representing them as facts.
BTW - For the sake of argument I appears those of us on the “law” side of this argument are willing to discuss the importance and ramifications of another convicted drug smugglers statements referring to OAD. It was CCG who stated there were 2 statements, not one, supporting this contention and all we asked was for some kind of verification. Now were back to square one arguing the same things we have been for six months.
This is so tiring.
Who cares about the damn van? It was there, it was loaded, it was driven by OAD.
WTF does this have to do with anything?
Your propensity to make mountains out of the smallest of insignificant details is amazing and quite tiring. Do you plan to win this debate by boring us to death with minutia and burying is under mountians of insignificant flotsam and jettsam?
If so it may be working because I am so damn tired of discussing this without getting anywhere is unbelievably taxing on my psyche.
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.