Posted on 09/24/2007 6:15:44 AM PDT by Boston Blackie
Two former U.S. Border Patrol agents sentenced to lengthy prison terms for shooting a drug-smuggling suspect have asked a federal appeals court to overturn their convictions, saying they were charged with a nonexistent crime and convicted after the jury was given improper instructions by the trial judge.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
It seems like you’re saying the only reason US prosecutors would pursue an indictment against US officers who might have illegally shot an unarmed mexican national in the back on US soil is because it upset the mexicans.
In other words, as long as mexico doesn’t complain, US officers should be able to shoot in the back and to kill, all the mexican “suspects” they can squeeze in their gun sites?
This is the disturbing undercurrent that runs through a lot of the posts by R&C supporters. The shock that anyone, least of all our system of justice, should care that US LEO’s may be shooting a bunch of illegal mexican “suspects” in the back.
I sear, these threads get more surreal as time goes on.
Exactly my point. Do you not recall writing this in post #156, above, less than an hour ago?
(An inaccurate statement, I might add).
The suspected vehicle was a blue mini van, OAD was driving a light grey full size van.
They were tried under a law that NO leos had ever been charged under. The law is for CRIMINALS in the COMMISSION of a CRIME! The congresspeople who wrote the law have stated over and over that the use of it was wrong by Sutton. http://www.firesociety.com/article/10489/?src=111
"...For several weeks [after the February 17, 2005 incident at the border] no investigation was ongoing. The Border considered the incident to be completely normal, the reporting to be acceptable and nothing was being done. Then on March 4 the request came through from the Mexican Consulate to the U.S. consulate in Mexico demanding an investigation on the basis that the Mexican Consulate was bringing forth [drug smuggler] Davila and wanted the agents to be punished..."
Is not a person in the process of robbing someone at gunpoint only a suspect by your definition? Isn't someone shooting at police only a suspect?
At what point do you find it acceptable for officers to respond to the actions of a "suspect"? Only after the "suspect" has been convicted by a jury? Well, how do they apprehend them then?
Officers have to react to the actions of criminal suspects based upon what they know at the time.
There was no evidence, only a suspicion that OVD MIGHT be a drug mule.
I agree 100%. However, OVD fled recklessly in the van when they attempted to stop him. He resisted arrest, and may very well have assaulted Compean (assault, not battery - I'm not saying that he hit Compean). He then once again fled and while fleeing turned back toward the officers. The fact that he turned back towards officer is proven through physical evidence, the angle of the entry wound. The rest is all from witness testimony, including the testimony of OVD.
You're the one fixating on the fact that drug were later found in the van, not me. I'm saying that his actions while fleeing gave officers good reason to use force when trying to apprehend him.
The van Compean (the eyewitness to the “loading”) reported seeing was a blue mini van, the van OVD drove was a light grey full size van.
Does a blue minivan really look that different from a grey van from a distance? Isn't it reasonable that he simply misspoke when he said minivan rather than full sized van? Grey and blue aren't that different, especially from a distance.
It's a small town. The officer that found OVD driving through town thought the van was close enough to the description to ask on the radio if it could be the same van, and attempt to stop the van to investigate.
After everything was done, Compean got credit for the drug bust because he was the one to spot the van, and the other officers didn't dispute that it was the same van. You're trying to make something out of an imprecise description that doesn't make sense considering the small area and the fact that multiple officers responded to the area from different directions, and that was the van that they found.
The officers were REQUIRED to immediately call in the pursuit to get an approval to pursue from a supervisor. They didn’t do that.
Yes, it is effectively Border Patrol policy to never chase a suspect fleeing in a vehicle. If an officer sees a fleeing suspect, regardless of what they had been doing, or who they are suspected of being, or what they are carrying, they are not permitted to give chase.
The only allowed if authorized by a supervisor is B.S., because the supervisor is only allowed to authorize a chase if the officer is in a cruiser and none of the border patrol officers drive cruisers. The supervisor had never in the history of his career authorized a chase.
That definitely shows a problem, demonstrates how screwed up their regulations and procedures really are and is one good example of why regulations were being widely ignored and not followed.
Whatever threat to civilians you want to assign to OVD over this you must also assign to the officers involved. In other words, they were just as guilty as OVD for recklessly putting the lives and safety of the local resident in jeopardy.
The liberal position that the cops are always at least in part to blame for what happens when criminals flee.
OK, so the suspect sees multiple border patrol vehicles, one flips on their lights and motions for him to pull over. Instead of pulling over, he stomps on it and flees for the border.
According to you, if those mean officers simply followed slowly behind, he would immediately slow back down and even obey traffic signals. It's those mean officers forcing him to speed recklessly through town, and he's only worried about them behind him, and not the other officers that were moving in and trying to cut him off from the border. If the original officers hadn't given chase he would have just calmly driven out of town.
Officers need to react to the the actions of criminals. The consequences of those actions are the fault of the criminals unless the officers actions are completely unreasonable. Following a fleeing suspect is not unreasonable unless you live in some liberal dream land where logic doesn't apply.
NOTE - Once OVD stopped and exited his van the threat to the community ceased, AND any excuse the BPA might have for an authorized shoot.
My point was that his fleeing demonstrated that he was a dangerous individual with little regards for the lives of others. There is no longer an imminent threat that he will drive over someone, but OVD was still a threat.
If you want to believe that OVD was armed, than you are perfectly reasonable in taking a position that R&C were justified in firing their weapons.
I just want to point out that it does not matter if OVD actually was armed. It only matters that the officers thought that he was armed and that their determination that he was an imminent threat was reasonable.
We know from the medical evidence that OVD was turned sideways when he was struck by the bullet. He wasn't simply running directly away, and he had already confronted Compean. It is very easy to mistake seeing something in someone's had as they turn towards you as they are running away, especially under the bright sun on the Mexican border.
If Compean and Ramos had reported the incident there is no way they would have been charged with any crime, even if everything OVD said is 100% true. Ramos and Compean had no reason to cover this up. All the other officers in the area that heard gunshots had no reason to cover this up.
The only real reason not to report it is no one wanted to do all the paperwork and go through the cumbersome process of investigating the shooting when there wasn't a suspect, and no one thought OVD had been hit. They saw him cross the river, a car meet him, pick him up, and drive off.
Do you really think that all those other officers that knew shots had been fired were part of a conspiracy to cover up Ramos and Compean trying to murder OVD?
That doesn't add up. Too many people for a conspiracy to hold together. They didn't even talk to each other before the supervisor arrived. How did they come to an agreement to cover up the incident?
After reading the trial transcripts I do not believe OVD had a gun (neither did the jury...all 12) and that it was only a later, manufactured excuse by R&C to cover their butts once the shoot became known.
That is based basically based on the fact that they didn't report the incident, so they must have been hiding something. It's the whole little lie, big lie theory.
However the evidence is there that they were chasing down a dangerous suspect, and the only real physical evidence which was the medical report, supports Ramos and Compean's story. OVD wasn't running directly away from them. He was turned back toward them when he was hit.
OVDs assertion that he was zig zagging back and forth as he ran is about as credible as his assertion that he slowly walked up the steep muddy embankment toward Compean with both hands held high overhead. This was while Compean was yelling stop in spanish, which the officers back at the van head and testified to hearing.
OVD said he was just trying to turn himself in at that point, even though he kept coming at Compean and unquestionably got within arms reach.
Ask any officer what they are taught to do when a suspect refuses to stop and keep approaching them when they have a gun out? The answer is they are taught to shoot them, and to shoot to kill. There is always a gun involved in a physical conflict with a police officer, and officers are taught to use deadly force before their gun is taken from them.
So if Compean wanted to shoot OVD, why didn't he do it then? It was completely justified by the situation. Instead Compean let him approach to within arms reach. A lot has been made about OVD's claim that Compean tried to hit him with the shotgun. Well if he did, that was an appropriate use of force, and OVDs closing to arms reach despite being ordered to stop was legally an assault on a federal law enforcement officer.
So the whole premise that Compean's actions leading up to him ending up on the ground were criminal is complete and total B.S.
OVD wouldn't even stop when confronted with an armed officer in his way telling him to stop. Instead he approached the officer, and since Ramos didn't catch up at this time, he pretty obviously didn't slowly walk up the hill with his hands above his head. He came right at Compean, pushed by him and ran. When Compean was getting up, he thought he saw a weapon in OVDs hand and that he was trying to shoot him. That is hardly an unreasonable conclusion considering the situation. The situation that is completely based on the evidence and witness testimony.
IMO, anyone that believes the black shiny object story is willfully ignoring 95% of the facts of the case simply because they WANT TO believe any these officers or any LEO would never lie about something like this.
I just don't believe that many officers could maintain a conspiracy to keep things quiet if they thought this was something more than avoiding paperwork. Conspiracy's don't work.
I understand that sentiment but you can’t ignore that their are some bad officers out there or that sometimes they make mistakes and if you turn your head or cover your eyes anytime a situation like this arises all you end up with is corps and agencies filled with bad officers or ones that don’t have the judgment or balance to be carrying a gun.
Bad officers need to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. However, in this case there just isn't evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that these two (and all the other officers who were in the area) did more than try and avoid paperwork.
They aren't completely innocent. Their paperwork, at least in Compeans case amounted to obstruction of justice, and they should be punished for violating procedures and should lose their jobs. But the charges against them were not justified.
Do a Lexis-Nexis search Bob. It has been reported on extensively since at least last March when the media got a copy of the DEA report. The two individuals were Jose Ortiz and Cipriano Ortiz.
Here is one article. There have been more since the DEA Report also made it's way to Capitol hill where several Congressman commented on it.
If the danger was being created by a speeding vehicle, that specific danger is over when the vehicle stops and the perp exits. If you can’t stipulate to this simplest of logical statements than you won’t stipulate to the sun rising in the morning, so I won’t try.
You R&C supporters love to crow about how OAD was shot “in the butt”, as if this makes any difference other than to trivialize the life long injuries a human being may have at the expense of what may be a trigger happy LEO.
Now you will go on about how OAD was an illegal, a drug mule, etc, but none of this is material because at the time they shot him they DIDN’T KNOW HE WAS ILLEGAL OR THAT HE WAS A DRUG MULE, only that they suspected him of such. I know this makes no difference to you but that is because you are ignorant of the law and don’t care if LEO’s are illegally shooting people in the back as long as they are shooting people you don’t like.
For starters, Compean and Ramos testifies that the are trained and in fact were shooting at OAD’s torso in an attempt to kill him. The fact that they hit him in the butt only indicates their aim was off but does not disprove that they were aiming at his back as he was running away from him. That’s shooting someone in the back and the fact that you continue to argue this simple fact is another indication at best of your lack of objectivity regarding this incident.
As for the vehicle, all I pointed out was that there was some confusion over the description of the vehicle among the officers involved and that should have raised some professional skepticism on their part. In your last post you verify this confusion, thank you.
If I were one of the officers when Compean confirmed the vehicle I might have asked myself or Compean “Uhh, didn’t you say it was blue”?
There you go agaon with your obfuscation and diversion.
There were two issues about the van, the first was how it got there and that’s when I said “who cares”, and the second was the confusion over the original description of it to other officers by Compean, which I do think may be important to your opinion that R&C had plenty of probable cause to shoot OAD because they believed he was a drug mule.
But I’ll lapse back on to my previous position, let’s forget about the van, it was there it was used, the rest is for the most part is flotsam and jetsam.
But please quit saying R&C had legal cause to shoot because they thought he was a drug smuggler. They might have had reasonable suspicion of it but RS doesn’t reach the level of probable cause which would the beginning position of defending it as a good shoot. When they shot him they DID NOT have the necessary information to determine that he was a drug smuggler much less even an illegal.
WOW you are a rude piece of work, attacking me is not the way to get your message out. First of all you are putting a lot of words in my mouth that I never said. How can you possibly think you know what I think?
I have never said I believe US prosecutors conducted this trial to please Mexican authorities. Please show me where I have ever said that.
I surely never said it was ok for US officers to shoot any or all Mexicans.
The most disturbing thing about this thread is you have lost your mind and are no longer coherent about this topic. You would reach more people with your message if you would calm down, take a deep breath, collect your thoughts and actually read posts and respond to them intelligently.
I have first hand knowledge of the way US authorities respond to inquiries and demands of Mexican authorities, concerning a number of incidents on this border over the last 12 years. I have personally witnessed the "jumping through hoops" that I was referring to. I was not just referring to this case, I was speaking in general terms of how US authorities respond to Mexican authorities. I have stated in other threads that I have no real knowledge of this particular case other than news articles. I have rarely posted on these threads, and by the way you need to capitalize "Mexican" and "Mexico" Mexico is the name of a country and "Mexicans" refers to nationality and both should be capitalized. Now be a good boy and go attack someone else.
Agreed about the 10 year mandatory but even if that is thrown out it doesn’t make the shoot good and they will still be subject to the other charges they were convicted on.
Let me say it again and make it perfectly clear, just because the legislation under which they were convicted and received the ten year mandatory sentence may be found invalid, it does not mean the shoot was good or that they will be absolved of discharging their weapons at an unarmed fleeing suspect.
The only way those charges will go away is if they are granted a complete new trial and a new jury finds differently.
Ramos was not a traffic officer. Aldrete was not being purued for bad driving habits.
If you can’t stipulate to this simplest of logical statements than you won’t stipulate to the sun rising in the morning, so I won’t try.
Give me accurate, logical and relevant statements, and I would be happy to stipulate to them.
I know this makes no difference to you but that is because you are ignorant of the law and don’t care if LEO’s are illegally shooting people in the back as long as they are shooting people you don’t like.
This is OVER THE TOP. Show me ONE post--just ONE--where I have shown to be "ignorant of the law" or to not "care if LEO's are illegally shooting people in the back..." JUST ONE, Bob! Come on. BACK IT UP or RECANT.
This time you have REALLY outdone yourself with your continuing lies!!!
As to your continued obsession with the van, did you even read my post? I posted it TWICE. Compean never said BLUE. Chris Sanchez testified to what was actually on the radio transcripts and what you are posting are the twisted myths of Oscar Sanchez that HE ADMITTED on the witness stand were WRONG. READ the darn Transcript!
As does this WND story
This story mentions the indictment of Ortiz-Hernandez for the October load, and once again mentions no other witness, nor any indication Davilas was arrested, charged, or considered a suspect:
But WND can find no documentation that Aldrete-Davila has yet been brought before any federal grand jury on drug charges or that any drug offense criminal indictments are outstanding for him, even though government documents confirm links between Aldrete-Davila and the Oct. 23, 2005, drug discovery at Ortiz-Hernandez's home.
Those "government documents" are the DEA reports which indicate that Ortiz-Hernandez accused Davilas of bringing the drugs to his home. Again, Ortiz is the only source, and the fact that his statement appears in multiple government documents doesn't corroberate the story, or indicate that the government is saying it.
Just as WND lies saying that the trial transcripts "confirm" it when they only show that the defense lawyers knew of the allegation and brought it up, and nobody else argued the merits -- which makes sense because the ruling was irrespective of the merits. No point arguing over what the facts are if they don't matter to the ruling.
Oh, you could be refering to Ortiz-Hernandez' brother, Jose, who at one time told THIS now-known false story:
DEA interviews with the Clint house’s owner, Cipriano Ortiz-Hernandez, led to his brother, Jose Ortiz, who told DEA agents that Aldrete-Davila had moved the narcotics from Juarez to El Paso, adding that the van Aldrete-Davila was driving needed work, so he referred him to his mechanic brother, Cipriano.Note that in THIS version, Jose met Davilas, and only sent him to his brother because the van was broke.
Now of course we know that Ortiz ran a known drug stash house. So NOW the WND story is that Davilas was DELIVERING the drugs to the stash house. That's a lot different than "he was driving here, but I sent him THERE because his van needed work".
Note that if the original story with "Jose" was true, "Jose" would be an accomplice, and probably would have been indicted with his brother.
Now, there are several stories that CLAIM the DEA report showed enough evidence to indict Davilas: Sutton's assertion that Aldrete-Davila has not been arrested is accurate. However, an Oct. 25, 2005, DEA report shows that DEA investigators believed they had sufficient evidence to indict Aldrete-Davila, but their requests to do so were denied by prosecutors.
Oh, there's a pro-C/R source who agrees Davila was NOT arrested, for those who still spread THAT false claim (I've seen it on this very thread).
But other references to this DEA report just say it implicated Davila (which it does, as it contains the claim of Ortiz), but doesn't say it called for indictments. For some reason I can't find the actual Oct 25, 2005 DEA REPORT, If I could I could verify the claim.
However, investigators thinking they have enough for an indictment is not the same as having enough for an indictment, nor is it proof that he was guilty. Meanwhile, the original claim that he was arrested is provably false, and even pro-C/R writers admit that now.
Maybe you think I was too dismissive of the drug house owner's brother's claim. But for me, given that the story he told was countered by their own later story and the indictment/guilty plea, it seems quite likely he was just lying to protect his brother, if not himself, from the charges. Again, there is no evidence, no fingerprints, nobody has presented proof that Davila crossed the border in this van.
As I've said before, there is not enough evidence to prove the story is a lie, which means that it is within the realm of possiblity that Davila DID smuggle a load of drugs (Of course, as the judge noted, that would not justify a shooting months earlier, or speak to whether Davila was lying in his earlier statements). But there is no evidence other than the testimony of the now-convicted drug stasher, and I guess at one time his brother, to link Davila to any 2nd load.
And the assertion he was arrested or "caught" with drugs is just false.
You are the ones who argued that people involved in the drug trade can't be trusted. And frankly, I'm with you on that, always have been. If the ONLY evidence we had against C/R was the testimony of Davila, I'd be with you, but they also would never have been convicted.
Davila is "credible" only to the extent that his testimony corresponded with the physical evidence and the testimony of other agents, while the testimony of C/R did not.
In the 2nd case, you have no evidence, only the statements of a guy who was apparently a known drug stasher, who started by probably getting his brother to concoct a story of an innocent enounter to "fix a van", before realising the gig was up and changing the story to "Davila was delivering the drugs to his house".
Anyway, it's a LOT of pained twisting of the truth just to get to showing that someone we all know was a crooked drug smuggler might have been a drug smuggler, a fact that didn't change anything about what happened that day he was shot.
The drug bust at Ortiz-Hernandez’ home WAS under investigation. He was even set free during that investigation. That investigation concluded this spring with a guilty plea by Hernandez.
Have you heard Sutton say this since April of 2007? If so, can you cite a radio show and at least a week so we can try to find the audio or transcripts?
I have NEVER, EVER said that. STOP LYING!!!
When they shot him they DID NOT have the necessary information to determine that he was a drug smuggler much less even an illegal.
They didn't shoot because he was a smuggler, or an illegal. They shot because THEY BELIEVED HE WAS POINTING A GUN AT THEM!!!!!
Fault me for being lazy, but I’m sure that was in the trial transcripts, and was in the news reports. The only “significance” was that it shows that the particular news story being quoted that I was responding to was simply repeating bad facts written by others, and therefore was not a reliable source for other information in the same story.
I wish that getting the facts right was considered significant by everybody. I think it’s important to get the facts right, even those facts that have no direct bearing on the incident.
Because other than being false, there is NO significance to how the van came to be loaded with drugs. It doesn’t change what happened when he was chased and abandoned the van.
However, it does make the story consistant with the truth. It shouldn’t be much of an argument either — driving a van over is a much harder proposition than sneaking a person over, and Davilas at the time was illegal, with no papers, so it would make no sense for HIM to try to drive a van full of drugs through a border checkpoint.
In fact, the argument about the 2nd “smuggling” is that he was able to drive a van through the checkpoint because he had a pass.
Thank you. Of course, we don’t know if that’s about the 2nd “smuggling”, or about the 1st smuggling, which he could still be charged with, if they could link him to it without his testimony.
I would be pleased if they did find a way to indict him for drug smuggling, and put him in jail.
I think the claim that Sutton doesn’t WANT aldrete in jail is wrong. I would also expect that there would still be investigations about ALL the drugs that were at the stash house. I would also think that if they already HAD evidence on Davilas, they would have indicted him by now.
But the Ortiz-Hernandez investigation ended when he pled guilty.
I can’t remember why we got into an argument over whether there were still ongoing investigations, and rather than go back and figure it out I’ll just say I’m sorry for any statement I made that there were NO MORE INVESTIGATIONS of any kind, (if that’s what I said).
That set of quotes does NOT say that sutton admitted there was a second load. It in fact says Sutton denies there is any evidence linking Davilas to a 2nd load.
Oh, just because I want to be precise, there WAS a load of marijuana found at Ortiz’s house, the question is whether Sutton has evidence that the load was tied to Davila.
The reports Duncan is citing most probably is the report everybody cites that contains the allegations by Ortiz that Davila put the drugs at his house. There has been no report I’ve seen that mentions any physical evidence linking Davila to the scene, no fingerprints, not even a credible report that he had access to that type of van in Mexico or that he is recorded driving such a van through the border.
That wouldn’t disprove things, as I understand we don’t keep good records of border crossings.
Was the gun sticking out of his ass? :)
Yes. I was referring to witnesses as Cipriano Ortiz and Jose Ortiz.
Why do you say "THIS now-known false story"? It sounds like you have theorized it to be false but without more information, I will go with the Congressmen who have apparently viewed the documents and believe ther was a problem there.
Yes--I heard him in July saying it was "under investigation" in his testimony to the Senate.
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.