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 ...
Thanks. I’ll spend my time doing something more productive.
Are you actually as ignorant as your posts reveal?
Or is it just a game with you?
We could even say that some are weaving lies from straws.
And who would know better than Compean himself...?? "That we know of..."??
You are so disingenuous. You are no longer speculating Chuck. You are now casting doubt and effectively calling Compean a liar. Compean testified that this was the first time he had fired his gun at someone in the line of duty and I haven't seen any statements/evidence offered by anyone throughout this ordeal that refute Compean's claim.
Take your spin somewhere else.
I can't even COMPARE the two, and certainly don't find the latter more serious.
Amen to that sister.
And are now getting tangled up in the web that they are attempting to weave...
No, I’m not. I was addressing why everybody at the scene took the sound of gunshots so blithely. I speculated without evidence, and clearly stated so.
But my subsequent statement “that we know of” was there for a reason, one you and maybe others missed.
Yes, he testified it was his first time, and there is no evidence otherwise. I obviously do believe he lied on the stand because I currently believe there was no gun — but I wouldn’t SAY he lied because I don’t KNOW there was a gun. It’s just that ANYBODY who found it credible that he be found guilty must at some level think he wasn’t telling the whole truth.
But my “that we know of” had a different purpose. See, if it wasn’t for Davila’s story getting back to the BP agency, we would not have known of THIS shooting.
Suppose 6 months after this shooting, there had been another shooting involving Compean.
Do you think in testifying for THAT shooting that he would have volunteered about THIS shooting, the one he didn’t report, knowing that telling about it 6 months later would get him fired and prosecuted?
Seriously, it’s a question, you tell me — if Davila had never come forward, do you think Compean would EVER have testified at a trial that he had shot at Davila previously?
If not, and I don’t see how you could honestly assert you are certain he would, then aren’t you really admitting that, if he actually shot at someone six months before THIS shooting, and didn’t report THAT one either, that he wouldn’t testify to it?
Compean has shown that he would shoot at someone and not report it, to keep it secret and out of the record.
So it is not completely BASELESS to point out that, when he says it’s the first time he used his gun, there is a rational basis for someone to think that could be untruthful.
But there is NO evidence that it is untruthful. Just of course as, if Davila had not come forward, there’d be NO EVIDENCE that he shot his gun THIS time either.
Once someone has kept a shooting from the record, you can’t fault others for taking his word about shootings with some degree of skepticism.
That his supporters treat his TESTIMONY as if it is proven FACT shows I think why we have trouble with agreeing on the “FACTS”. Testimony, from ANY witness, is not FACT, it is their version of what they want you to think. It could be true or not, but it isn’t the same as physical evidence.
Well, you misrepresent my comparison, but maybe it just wasn’t clear.
I was comparing the STATEMENTs made, hence the words “as allegations go it was not as serious”. I was not comparing the CIRCUMSTANCES in which the statements were made.
Yes, testifying falsely to congress is much more serious than writing a false internet post. That’s a straw man here.
Saying the guy joked about wanting to “shoot mexicans” is NOT as serious an allegation as saying that Sutton railroaded the prosecution of two innocent BP agents to put them in jail because he is working with drug smugglers and for the mexican government.
“as allegations go” the first “ is not as serious as the” second.
Now do you understand, or do you want to go around again?
The pro C/R folks do seem to get off the track — since the statement in question was not used at trial, it really has no bearing on whether they trial verdict should be overturned.
Neither does whether or not there is evidence for the 2nd smuggling load, btw. The TRUTH of the ALLEGATION was not important to the trial, it was whether or not the allegation was admissable at trial. That is a fair question for the appeals court to adjudicate, and I don’t know which way they would fall. I felt it was a correct decision, but that’s just my un-lawyer opinion.
IF the judge had ruled it was admissable, I presume THEN there would have been a fight over what the facts were. Since the judge ruled to exclude assuming the facts were true, the whole issue of whether there is more evidence or not about the 2nd bust is meaningless to the issue of the appeal.
As is the motivation behind Sanchez doing the investigation, as the results of the investigation were a set of statements and physical evidence that stand independent of the motivation for collecting them.
As to whether the law applies or not, that is I think the best hope for the two, but realise that has nothing to do with whether they are guilty of a crime or not. It only deals with whether they were properly charged, and if their sentence is therefore just or injust. For that argument, NONE of the discussion here about whether the shooting was valid or not has any bearing on the case. It’s a strict matter of law, not of case facts.
If the appeals court agrees that the law does not apply to LEO, they will throw out THAT part of the conviction, not the entire case. If the appeals court decides the law, as written, DOES apply, they won’t. That decision won’t be based at all on whether the appeals court agrees with the findings of the jury.
I realise I covered stuff not in the referenced comment. I’m just trying to cut down my total number of posts, and wanted to address those people who claimed that MY posts were off-topic, and try to deal with the topic of this thread.
No, and I didn't say that either. What I SAID was (and remember it was just ONE of the BP agents, not both), was that the alleged STATEMENT "out to shoot mexicans" would be considered a "macho statement", not an actual claim of intent to commit a felony.
In other words, if Compean had actually SAID that, and there was evidence of it, I would not take it as an admission that he planned to shoot mexicans, but just as the typical macho crap men say to each other when they are sitting around talking, often in response to others who are taking things farther and farther.
I try so hard to make it clear by using english words what I am talking about. I hope you will try to read my comments with at least the little thought in the back of your head that I am trying to make sense, and not simply interpret what I say in the most rediculous way you can imagine.
Some days I think I would NEVER cooperate with police anymore.
But it’s hard to say what I’d do in this situation, because I wouldn’t be in this situation, because I would have reported the shooting when it happened, and as part of the investigation that would surely follow I’d be out there showing exactly where I was standing when I shot.
If I decided NOT to report it, and then later I was arrested for the shooting, and thought that the truth would exonerate me, I would think I would cooperate to get to the truth.
IN this particular instance, I don’t really know what finding or not finding that shell would do for or against me. But if I thought the exact location of the shell would prove I only shot after I came on a scene that looked like a shooting had taken place, I would go out and help find the shell, either for the initial investigators, or send my own defense team out, in order to prove where I was standing — if there was actually a question about where I was standing.
In general, I expect that when officers of the state shoot their weapons, they WILL cooperate in the investigation of that shooting, at LEAST as to the physical evidence of the shooting. Maybe not as to questions of their motivations.
But this is, as you say, a kind of personal opinion thing. For example, I’m not nearly as worked up as you over the investigation not questioning them (I am just assuming you are right about that, not asserting it as my own claim). They had every opportunity to report on the incident before they were arrested.
OK, in trying to be clear, I wasn’t. it was MY interpretation that ‘shooting at mexicans’ sounds like a joke, not a serious threat. That’s not HOW the DHS seems to have characterized it.
However, I think those testifying to congress really believed that was in the reports, because their subordinates told them it was.
I don’t excuse them for speaking without seeing the evidence, or the subordinates for reporting what they couldn’t verify.
I have NO evidence he said any such thing either, so I’m just comparing statement as a hypothetical statement now, not asserting he actually said it.
My comment in THAT regard is simply that the DHS did NOT RETRACT their claim that he said it, they retracted their claim they had a REPORT that said he said it. Maybe a distinction without a difference, because without a report there is no evidence he said it, but still when we are talking about what someone DID it’s more accurate to speak to what they actually said, not the interpretation of what they said.
Well, Charles, if you wouldn't keep CHANGING what it is you say to fit the moment, and wouldn't keep bringing up the same old tired BS, maybe we could actually get back on the TOPIC of this thread. Didn't you say this at one time?
But the prosecuter has evidence that the two were heard saying they were going to hurt a mexican, and he has testimony that the guy tried to surrender, and compean raised a weapon to strike the guy.
JOKED? This was NO JOKE! This was a serious allegation made by DHS officials to a cadre of Congressmen.
Read HERE: a lengthy chronology of events, outlined by Congressman McCaul, of the allegations made in the DHS meeting and the months of continuous attempts by DHS officials to stonewall those trying to get to the truth.
How on earth could you consider your posts as being back on topic? This thread was about the APPEAL and that Sutton and his cronies misapplied the law in bringing the 924(C) charge.
There is no evidence that Johnny Sutton is a puppy-killing, homosexual loving, PETA contributor and is in bed with the Mexican drug cartels--that we know of. *
*Just to make a point, Charles.
” “Why did it take DHS four months to admit their error?” he asked. “I wonder how much more has DHS told the public and Congress about Ramos and Compean that simply isn’t true?”
I have a question. How much do you suppose the head legal council for Homeland Security had to do with all this? I do find it curious that he resigned shortly after the admission of the lies by DHS, don’t you?
[snip]
Walker’s testimony further relates that these sort of impediments were encountered during his investigation of the Deepwater and SBI programs. A Tuesday article by Chris Strohm for the publication CongressDaily looks at one of the main individuals at DHS behind both Skinner and Walker’s investigative difficulties:
Walker said the problem is “systemic” and not the fault of any single individual. But he complained that GAO has had to go through the office of General Counsel Philip Perry. Perry is married to Elizabeth Cheney, a former State Department official who is one of the vice president’s two daughters. Walker said it is his understanding that people from Perry’s office have to review documents GAO seeks before they are released and selectively sit in on interviews with department employees.
“When you have more lawyers in a meeting than program people, you know you got a problem. Something needs to be done about this,” Walker said. “There needs to be an understanding that if the general counsel’s office is going to get involved, it’s clearly got to be the exception rather than the rule,” he added. “Right now the system is structured to delay, delay, delay ... We haven’t had a situation where they refuse information but it might take months to get it.”
Homeland Security Inspector General Richard Skinner said his investigations have also been hindered. “We’re experiencing the same problem,” said Skinner, who added his office is “oftentimes” told who they can interview and that it sometimes takes weeks to get documents.
Perry’s questionable behavior extends far beyond nepotism and delaying investigations. He’s also a pro at jumping back and forth between government and the private sector, doing what he can to benefit industry along the way. After Bush became president, Perry moved from being a junior partner at the DC law firm Latham & Watkins to holding the position of Associate-Attorney General for the Department of Justice. He then moved to the Office of Management and Budget as General Counsel, where he had a hand in drafting plans for DHS. In 2003, he returned to Latham & Watkins as a member of their Homeland Security practice group and lobbied on behalf of Lockheed Martin and other companies.
An article by Art Levine in the most recent addition of the Washington Monthly chronicles Perry’s exploits over the course of his career. By the time Perry joined DHS, he was a veteran advocate for the chemical industry and government contractors, and he had also made the right connections in government. Levine states:
Enter Philip Perry. When Michael Chertoff was nominated to head the DHS in 2005, he had asked Perry to join him as the department’s general counsel. The two were not only colleagues at Latham & Watkins but also members of the conservative Federalist Society, and they were of like minds in their general distrust of government regulation of business. By the summer of 2006, as various bills competed for attention, Perry’s services were in great demand. “Industry went back to the well,” says one DHS official.
To no surprise, Perry’s “revolving door” habits haven’t ended with his position at DHS. Secretary Chertoff announced on Jan. 23 that Perry would be resigning from DHS by Feb. 6, presumably to rejoin his old law firm. Although Perry’s exit will undoubtedly be an improvement for DHS accountability, the enormous problems that he had a hand in creating at the Department still remain.
Today’s hearing on DHS is proof of that fact. Members of the House Committee, particularly Reps. Kucinich, Duncan, and Hodes, condemned the extensive underhanded dealings between industry and government officials that have resulted in huge losses for taxpayers. Rep. Duncan proclaimed at one point that the Deepwater and SBI programs are “emblematic” of the contracting problems discussed in yesterday’s NYT editorial.
Furthermore, the GAO and DHS Inspector General’s concerns have kept the Department on GAO’s “high-risk” list (pdf), meaning that the stakes involved are high and much remains to be accomplished. As Congress continues with its hearings and investigations, it’s also possible that even more problems and cases of corruption will come to light. Finally, if his past is any prelude to the future, Perry will return to the scene like a villain in a low-budget horror movie sequel.
http://towncriernews.blogspot.com/2007/02/exposing-dept-of-job-security-who-is.html
Exposing the Dept. of Job Security (who is Philip Perry?)
That’s a fine statement. I think some of the R/C supporters will argue with you though.
Of course, you seem to have missed the point of the post again.
My point is that Compean wasn’t going to tell us about THIS shooting. If not for Davila, we could all be sitting around and arguing, and you could say “Compean has never shot his gun at ALL, that we know of”.
You probably didn’t want to address that point. Suppose Davila didn’t come forward. So nobody knows about the Feb shooting.
Suppose Compean is still a BP agent, and shoots a suspect. There’s questions about the shoot, and for some reason it goes to a grand jury. Compean is called, and asked if he has ever used his gun before.
What do you think he would say? Would he say “I’ve never shot at a suspect before this shooting”? Or would he say “Well, back in February I shot at a suspect, but we didn’t report it”.
What do you THINK he would say? And if you think he would NOT confess to the February shooting, then doesn’t that suggest that if there were OTHER shootings, he wouldn’t tell us about them either?
My point being that, unlike but similar to someone’s earlier point that evidence of evidence being suppressed is hard to come by, taking Compean’s word as FACT in this matter is not rational.
So if I speculate that Compean did this before, using his testimony to refute that speculation isn’t much of a refutation — since he was going to hide THIS shooting, why would we think he wouldn’t lie about other shootings?
I never said my speculation was the truth, or even likely. But you can’t dismiss it as refuted by evidence.
I’m HAPPY to agree that there is no evidence to back it. But the evidence against it is weak.
The lack of evidence is why it is speculation, and not opinion.
I’m certain if I refuted your statement about sutton by saying “That’s false, because Sutton says it’s false”, the sutton-haters would laugh at me and tell me Sutton is a liar and can’t be trusted.
I’m just saying that there is a valid reason why Compean’s testimony that he never used his gun, by itself, isn’t strong evidence that he never used his gun.
Because he wasn’t going to tell us about this time he used his gun.
Let me try a different example.
When Pete Rose was first accused of gambling, he denied it.
When it was PROVEN that he gambled, he then came out and said “yes, I gambled, but NEVER on my own team”.
When he said that, there was no PROOF he had gambled on his own team.
And yet, many people are convinced he DID. Why? Because they don’t trust his statement. Why not? Because he had previously tried to hide his gambling altogether, and was only admitting to it because he was caught.
Once you are forced into admissions by evidence against you, further claims that this is “all there is” carry much less credibility, even if they happen to be true.
In this case, my speculation about why people didn’t care about the shooting wasn’t meant in ANY way to suggest Compean was additionally culpable for anything. I wasn’t trying to suggest he had a history which opposed him, or that he should be tried for other shootings. I was simply speculating as to why it is that LEOs hear shots fired and don’t run to the aid of their fellow LEOs.
If you think it helps Compean’s case to deny any prior shootings, that’s fine with me — I don’t think prior shootings would strengthen the case anyway, and there is NO EVIDENCE of prior shootings.
I’ll say this — for a group that engages in rampant speculation about all manner of happenings in this case, you all sure jump on anybody who speculates anything that isn’t to your liking. At least I labelled mine speculation, as opposed to trying to assert my made-up stuff as fact. (Davila’s 2nd arrest warrant, anybody?)
In the previous thread we met in, you asserted your disinterest in the evidence against Cipriano Ortiz that is in the publicized court documents. These are available on PACER and the pdf of the actual court documents are posted at WND.
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55009
Yes, the van was at the residence. Six bundles of marijuana were found in the van. The corresponds exactly to the DEA report that was publicized by the Daily Bulletin of Ontario, California back in February. This Bulletin story was also the story that mentions Ortiz's brother Jose's assertion about the engine trouble. This was about the only story on the matter that Corsi didn't pen but you used this as your example to discredit Corsi's reporting on the matter. There was nothing wrong with the Bulletin story in the first place, unless you want to blame the reporter for the truthfulness of a witnesses assertion. The information about why Davila left the van there instead of just unloading it hasn't been made public yet.
Either way, someone drove him back to Mexico or he drove himself in a different vehicle. Curious thing about that part, he was scheduled to be in the country at the time to have surgery done on his injury but he didn't have the surgery done. I wonder if a custodian was assigned to meet Davila at the border and accompany him on his stay in the US, like Davila's other documented visits. I'd guess that custodian has the last name "Sanchez", I'd have a couple of different first names in mind.
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.