Posted on 12/03/2007 4:03:22 PM PST by dynachrome
>>You mean like the comments the PROSECUTION made like “R&C said they wanted to shoot Mexicans”<<
I know that officials from the DHS said that, and later admitted that was false, but I don’t know of any prosecutor who said it.
But I am not a Sutton fan. I believe that it is likely that he lied when he said that he could not prosecute OAD. Note that now OAD has been busted for the drug load that Sutton said he didn’t have any evidence to prosecute.
No. The friggin coward sent a lackey up there to face the music.
Sutton oughta have his azz in the slammer over this one. It is abuse of the Judicial power. It makes a mockery of the courts.
This kinda crap just reveals that the courts are truly just a good ‘ol boy network.
Then you are a fool.
Quite possibly that is due to some inattention on your part.
The only witnesses to the event at Fabens as it unfolded were 4 border patrol agents and the drug smuggler. He contends he did not have a gun. The two officers that fired at Davila, the smuggler, contend that his actions indicated that he had a gun, although one of them during his testimony was led to a "monday morning quarterback" consideration that he might have been mistaken. Of the other two officers at the scene during the encounter, one of them testified that he did not see the smuggler. The other officer, who changed his statement numerous times and was subsequently fired for lying, did not see a weapon carried by the smuggler, but, of course, he also did not have x-ray vision so he cannot positively exclude the absence of a weapon on the smuggler.
As to the buried shell casings, they were not buried by them. One officer, Compean, picked up his casings and threw them into the ditch(by his testimony) or he displayed them to another officer(by that officers testimony), then the casings blinked out of existence, because no mention was made of their disposal in that case. Ramos, the officer that actually shot once with effect, did not touch a thing.
When the two officers who shot at the smuggler crested the levee that separated the scene of the firing from the initial point of the smuggler's run, they observed nearly the whole complement of the BP station personnel present at the van which carried the drugs and had no reason to believe that all those there were not aware that firing had taken place. The only requirement was that a verbal report be made that a firearm was discharged. They assumed that such a report would be superfluous since the supervisor was on scene.
The nonsense that the prosecution tried to pass off -namely that the BP agents had no justification for the active pursuit because the fleeing suspect might have just been a scared illegal, is belied by the fact that just about everybody on duty showed up for the pursuit.
I don't remember if I mentioned it here or to coworkers, but when I first became familiar with this case, I "knew" that Davila was no amateur. The testimony of Rene Sanchez about the chance meeting in Mexico just happened to be located in another drug corridor going through south Texas.
19 A. Because I saw him in 2004 -- I don't know the exact date. 20 I saw him in Reynosa, Tamaulipas, that's across from McAllen, 21 Texas.
What did Sutton know, and when did he know it?
“Didn’t the conviction on the assault charge satisfy it?”
Using a weapon in the commission of a crime means that another crime was in progress when the gun was used as an aide to the other crime. You can not have it both ways where the use of a gun is its own crime and being used in another crime at the same time.
“Can you tell us which of thoise counts they were found guilty of?”
Not 1
Not 5, 6 or 7
Not 10 or 11
and if there were more than 12 counts none over 12.
Did you try at all to look for missing numbers in the post directly above yours?
Now if Sutton would only give a full and honest accounting of what was actually said between his office and the Mexican Government regarding OAD and the BP agents.
If the BP Agents were involved in a “Good Shoot” why is it that they failed to mention the shooting in the report?
A few years ago there was a Republican running for Governor of Illnois, Ryan. He was pro-choice and for increased gun control and proposed large increases in the state budget. There was a Democrat running for Governor of Illinois, Poshard. He was pro-life and against gun control and did not want to increase the state budget.
Who would you vote for?
By the way, Ryan is in prison now.
Who is the fool? The person who votes for the man or the person who votes for the party?
You make a good point, and I apologize for being a little quick on the trigger.
As a matter of fact, I once voted for pro-life Bob Casey Sr. over pro-abortion Barbara Hafer here in Pennsylvania. Casey ended up being virtually disowned by his party and Hafer ended up switching to the Democrat party.
So yep.... there are rare occassions when a Democrat is not a sick scumbag, or at least not as sick as the RINO.
FRegards,
LH
Your use of the word “choose” is interesting. You “choose” to believe the agents because you have not read the trial transcripts and therefore base your opinion on your emotions and what little information is put out in the press, which most of the time is not only inadequate but incorrect and sensationalized. I “choose” to believe the facts and evidence at trial, which IMO meets the standard of probable cause that the agents DID NOT believe they were in danger and therefore the shooting was unjustified.
And I will explain why. I would ask that you reciprocate and explain, unemotionally, why you believe R&C in fact were in imminent danger.
What did it for me was R&C’s actions during the shoot. There are actions officers under fire or who believe a suspect may be armed, take during an incident. Some of them are regulations, some are protocol and some are just common sense.
The first thing an officer does is yell out “GUN!” so other officers in the area are aware that they may be in danger. Both R&C claim they believe they saw something that looked like a gun and that was justification for their shooting.
But neither Ramos nor Compean ever called out “GUN!’...not during nor after. Compean knew Ramos was coming to his aid because he saw him crossing the ditch. He knew he would b in the immediate area, claims he saw OAD with something that looked like a gun and even pointed it at him, prior to shooting 14-15 times.
But he never alerted Ramos, nor the other officers, some who may have also crossed the ditch to lend assistance.
Ramos shoots from a standing position. Ramos also claims he saw something that looked like a gun (a black shiny object) that OAD pointed at him, to justify his firing of the weapon. But Ramos never takes cover. He testified that he fired, saw OAD fall or drop into the brush, but he doesn’t change his position, drop to his knees or move somewhere that provide some defensive cover against a perp who he not only thinks has a weapon but pointed it at him.
At this point, all R&C know is that OAD might be armed and might be hiding in the brush maybe 100-150 feet away, hidden, with a weapon. Ramos might have dropped OAD at this distance do it would be reasonable to assume OAD could also shoot back, from a covered position, where he would have time to set himself and take careful aim.
What do R&C do? Do they call out “shots!” to the other agents? Do they drop to their knees to allow the brush to give them some additional cover? Do they move back or forward or anywhere that may provide some better defensive position against an armed and dangerous suspect?
No. Ramos continues to stand there and Compean gets off his one knee firing position and calmly walks over to Ramos. Both Ramos and Compean testified they then waited to see if they had hit OAD. One minute, three minutes, five? During this entire time do they do ANYTHING one would expect from a well trained, veteran LEO when confronted with an armed suspect.
They do nothing. At trial, when asked what was said between the two during this wait to see if OAD would reappear, they BOTH testified that they said nothing. Not a word was exchanged between them.
I’m sorry , that is simply to incredible to swallow. Between the two of them 15-16 shots were just fired at a fleeing suspect, they weren’t sure if he was winged, dead or what, and they both just stand there for several minutes without saying a word?
I just can’t buy it. Neither did the jury.
Eventually they testified they saw OAD exit the Rio Grande on the Mexican side. They said that he might have been walking funny, slowly, but this did not indicate to them that he may have been hit. They then walked back to the levee area in a “blading” fashion. This means they were kind of walking sideways so they could keep an eye on OAD to make sure he didn’t return and/or fire at them.
Which of course means the officers continued to believe OAD was a threat and that they had to take precautions. But did they then call out “gun!’ or “shots!” to any other officer that might have crossed the ditch and levee to lend support?
No. They testify they walk back slowly, “blading”, and CONTINue to maintain a cone of silence between them.
When they reach the levee, one of the supervisors who had arrived on the scene ask either Ramos, Compean or both, what happened.
Do they tell him about Compean squeezing off 10 rounds, reloading and shooting again? Do they tell him about the perp who may be armed and dangerous? Do they tell how Ramos got off one shot and may have hit the perp?
No, the say “nothing happened”.
This is why I don’t believe them, I don’t believe they thought OAD had a gun and why I don’t believe they ever thought they were in danger.
“They are the accused and they don’t have to prove anything.”
No, they don’t. But if the prosecution has some pretty good evidence against them it would be in their best interest to present evidence of their own that shows the charges are false.
“Oh wait, I’m suppose to believe the testimony of OAD who the prosecutor now admits LIED on the stand.”
As I’ve stated a hundred times, my opinions are based solely on the evidence and actions of R&C. Even several jury members, after the trial, stated the jury placed no weight on what OAD said and that they convicted R&C based on their own testimony, the above being some examples.
“As for the defense of R&C, I don’t know all the evidence they tried to put into court to defend themselves but were not allowed due to legal filings by Sutton such as the amount of drugs that were found in the van.”
I have no idea of what you’re talking about. Evidence was presented at trial showing the amount and weight of the pot confiscated from the back of the van and on top of that OAD testified he knew he was a “drug mule” and transporting drugs.
“This might have convinced some of the jury that OAD was not a simple mule but part of a drug gang and would have carried a gun.”
As stated a hundred times, jury members said they discounted the testimony of OAD and convicted on R&C’s unbelievable and contradictory testimony alone. Transporting drugs, once twice, three times, does not make one part of a drug cartel. All it proves is they are a serial drug mule. Drug cartels do not send out their “capos” to transport drugs in the US. They hire poor idiots who do it for the “payday” and so they don’t get caught and sent to prison themselves.
“Oh wait Sutton didn’t want that at the trial or the fact that OAD had been caught a second time running drugs. Do you think these facts might have swayed the jury as to OAD credibility and likelihood he had a gun.”
No,, I think it would have had minimal impact for the aforementioned reasons. You also state that this is “a fact”. in actuality, at the time, all the DEA had was
the word of another arrested drug mule, nothing more, and as you have stated repeatedly and repeatedly, drug runners cannot be trusted.
Do you know state that you believe, without any other supporting evidence of any kind, the word of one drug mule and not that of another? Aren’t you being somewhat selective in what you choose to believe or not?
I on the other hand, don’t take at face value what either of them have said. Who is being consistent?
“You said the prosecution and defense have to prove what they say.”
In court in front of the jury.
“You mean like the comments the PROSECUTION made like “R&C said they wanted to shoot Mexicans” and other incedianry comments they alleged R&C made but never proved.”
I don’t know why they said this or what documentation or evidence they believed they had to say it. I do know none of it ever entered the courtroom and therefore could not sway the jury one way or another...it was never a factor at trial.
That being said, his misstatements have a continued need for correction.
“The other officer, who changed his statement numerous times...”
Yes, he changed his statement from supporting the “blue wall of silence” to admitting what he saw that day. Admittedly he did so under the threat of prosecution for perjury, but that is how many investigators squeeze the truth out of potential witnesses.
This is good example of how AC misrepresents the facts. He gives you just enough information to question the veracity of a witnesses claims but not enough to come to a reasonable conclusion. He is not to be trusted.
“One officer, Compean, picked up his casings and threw them into the ditch(by his testimony) or he displayed them to another officer(by that officers testimony), then the casings blinked out of existence, because no mention was made of their disposal in that case. Ramos, the officer that actually shot once with effect, did not touch a thing.”
Compean testified he picked up what shell casings he could then tossed them in the ditch. Another officer (after piercing the blue line of silence) testified Compean showed him the casings, counted them and then asked that officer to go back and pick up the ones he missed. Compean testified he wasn’t counting casings, but fresh rounds but the other BP agent was very clear that they were spent round casings.
NOTE - A veteran Evidence Team combed the ditch with metal detectors but could never find the casings Compean claimed he threw in the ditch (that 6-10 other officers never saw he did right on front of them). I might believe one or two, but 14-15? So here is a situation where you have the word of one agent against the other. Personally I have a tendency to believe the one that may have shot an unarmed fleeing suspect, engaged on destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice and a cover up...and isn’t looking at 40 years in jail.
But that’s just me.
Also, there wasn’t any additional mention of it because when asked in court about them Comp said he threw them in the ditch. Where is the prosecution supposed to go from there? I guess they could waterboard Compean to find out what he actually did with them...
ALSO, Ramos testified he didn’t pick up his one shell casing but the same evidence team combed the area and was never able to find his. So this one is a mystery but one could assume since Compean picked up his Ramos did the same. Ramos might be able to get away with one missing shell casing but there was no way anyone would believe the 14-15 from Compean just disappeared into thin air...
“When the two officers who shot at the smuggler crested the levee that separated the scene of the firing from the initial point of the smuggler’s run, they observed nearly the whole complement of the BP station personnel present at the van which carried the drugs and had no reason to believe that all those there were not aware that firing had taken place. The only requirement was that a verbal report be made that a firearm was discharged. They assumed that such a report would be superfluous since the supervisor was on scene.”
This is a complete baloney rationalization. BP policy is clear, fire your weapon make a direct report to a supervisor. Not another agent, not doing so because you “assume” everyone knew...the agent HAS TO DO IT HIMSELF. Period. End of story.
NOTE - At least one super was advised that shots were heard so they asked R, or C or both about it and their “official verbal report” to that super was “nothing happened”.
So the super satisfied his responsibility (albeit a weak one) and R or C or both set themselves on the path of a cover up.
“The nonsense that the prosecution tried to pass off -namely that the BP agents had no justification for the active pursuit because the fleeing suspect might have just been a scared illegal, is belied by the fact that just about everybody on duty showed up for the pursuit.”
Uhhh, only 3-4 officers engaged in the pursuit, the others showed up after it was radioed in that they had terminated the pursuit at the levee (some may have already been on the way but didn’t engage in the pursuit). On a slow day, I would assume most available officers respond to these types of alerts if anything to get the lead out and make themselves useful. Isn’ that what we pay them for?
“The testimony of Rene Sanchez about the chance meeting in Mexico just happened to be located in another drug corridor going through south Texas.”
Are you inferring that Rene Sanchez is a dirty Border Patrol Agent tied to the drug cartel?
Wow, how is that “supporting our Border Patrol who put their lives on the line everyday”? Or do you just support those BP agents that shoot unarmed illegals in the back”
I’m not certain which charge they were convicted on supported the 10 year mandatory but I would think it was the assault charge.
I didn’t ask you what charges on which they were found innocent. If you’re not going to answer the question, save yourself some time and say so.
People have no clue how destructive that single 1895 (?) supreme court ruling was. If jurors were informed of their rights there would be no OJ trial today and John Couey would have been erased within months instead of years.
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.