Posted on 12/03/2007 4:03:22 PM PST by dynachrome
First, only one of them filed a report, Compean, and second, the report did not require the mention of any shooting. It was a report of seizure an I-44. From the testimony, part 13 page 184.
24 MS. STILLINGER: Mary Stillinger for Mr. Ramos. 25 I was the one trying to get into the I-44 December 1 shooting. This is a shooting involving other people. 2 THE COURT: Right. 3 MS. STILLINGER: And that I-44 doesn't say anything 4 about the fact that there was a shooting, even though it was 5 reported. And they objected, saying that has nothing to do 6 with anything, because the shooting wouldn't go on an I-44. So 7 I think Mr. Antcliff is saying they're being inconsistent -- 8 MR. ANTCLIFF: And probable cause isn't -- 9 MS. KANOF: No, we never -- 10 MR. ANTCLIFF: -- part of the I-44. It's a form for 11 apprehension of seizure.
Finally, as I mentioned before, they thought a verbal report would be superfluous, since practically the whole department was at the scene.
Take whatever inference you want from the statement I made. The fact is, it is very coincidental that they met in Mexico at a location far from where they grew up. And Rene practically denied everything but a incidental acquiantence with Davila.
I'll get to your other statement later. I don't have the time to address your vituperation presently.
Well, not quite ALL freepers. I recall several who were foursquare in the prosecution's corner. "No one is above the LAW and so forth. Strange they seem to have vanished in the interim... and now that we see once again who it is that thinks they are really above the law, are quiet as little mice.
Honey, NO ONE trusts the courts since the OJ trial. Grow up yourself.
“Take whatever inference you want from the statement I made.’
No, I ask you directly to clarify your statements.
You’re like a third grade school girl who runs away giggling after putting a kick me sign on some poor kid.
Grow up and grow some balls.
You really hate, to the point of lying, BP agents who do their job.
Hmmm, more unfounded accusations.
You accused me of lying, care to offer any proof? Care to tell me how shooting an unarmed fleeing suspect in any way satisfies BP agents doing their job?
Unless of course, you believe shooting suspectd illegal aliens or suspected drug mules to be part of their job.
Do you have trouble understanding English? I stated that the meeting was too coincidental and essentially belied the remote relationship that Rene was trying to portray between the two. Whether Rene was/is involved with a drug cartel is not the question What is put to the test is his relationship to Davila and Davila's involvement with drugs. Face it, at least one of the appelate judges would laugh at your contention that Davila was a poor innocent mule.
Again your vituperation is evidence of your lack of argument. Ad Hominem is the refuge you take.
The charges they were found guilty of were in the reply that you responded to asking what they were found guilty of.
Here is the pertinent part of the reply that you responded to asking what they were guilty of:
Count 2, assault
4 with a dangerous weapon, and aiding and abetting. Count 3,
5 assault with serious bodily injury and aiding and abetting,
6 which carries a statutory penalty of ten years of
7 incarceration, a $250,000 fine, three years of supervised
8 release, and a $100 special assessment.
9 Count 4, discharge of a firearm in commission of a
10 crime of violence carries a ten-year minimum mandatory
11 sentence, a $250,000 fine, five years’ supervised release, and
12 a $100 special assessment.
13 Count 8, tampering with an official proceeding, Count
14 9, tampering with an official proceeding, both carry a 20-year
15 sentence, a $250,000 fine, three years of supervised release,
16 and a $100 special assessment.
17 And Count 12, deprivation of rights under color of the
18 law, carries a ten-year sentence, a $250,000 fine, three years
19 of supervised release, and a $100 special assessment.
20 So we are here this afternoon for your sentencing.
You dislike answering, yet you answer to a post not addressed to you and address only me.
Evidently, your fixation with your version of things, in which you are the one that makes up things, causes you to view any evidence contrary to your opinion as a misrepresentation. Despite what you think, quotes are not misrepresentations.
“blue wall of silence” is your term and not something in evidence or provable by the record. The lying officer charge is provable and fact.(you admit so with the single word "yes")
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.
That is your lie. Here is the testimony.
Vasquez testimony pg 38.
Q. And then what did you say? A. I told him, "I got to go." And he says, "I also have to go to the station to do the report. By the way, can you find those casings for me?" Q. I'm sorry. He asked you to find the casings for him? A. He says, "Since you're going to that area, can you look for those?" Q. Is that all he said? A. Yes ma'am. Q He didn't tell you what to do with them? A. No, ma'am.Compean testified that he mentioned that Vasquez might see the shells there. You can see from the two characterizations of the comment that Compean made to Vasquez, that Compean did not ask Vasquez to pick up anything.(IOW Vasquez is lying, it is easier to say "pick up" rather than "find" or "look for" to convey the meaning "pick up".
NOTE-The same officers that did not see Compean throw the casings into the ditch, also did not see him pick up those casings from the top of the levee where he could be observed even from miles away in Mexico.(the casings Compean admitted to picking up were on the south side of the levee where his testimony places him shooting at the fleeing Davila, and not at the top of the levee where Juarez placed him after several iterations of statements. Compean's placement of the firing position was the same from first to last.)
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...
There were probably only ten casings. Compean found and disposed of five as he testified and Vasquez got rid of the other 5 as he testified. Any other casings are the fiction of the prosecution.
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”.
Back it up with "proof"
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?
More of your made up feces. The termination call certainly came after everyone was at the scene due to the arrival times of everyone there. They all converged on the suspect. The available officers had areas of responsibility which were left uncovered as they converged on the scene(except for those that left the station).
Right you are.
My hyperbole was a bit excessive. But my emotional sukpport of the two border patrol folks is not ill placed, imho.
BP agent Rene Sanchez’s family used to live in Mexico and they were from the same small town as the OAD family. Sanchez knew with OAD’s older brother there, however he didn’t know OAD other than seeing him around. They weren’t friends, there was something like a 12-15 year age difference.
Rene Sanchez’s family went back to the town in Mexico for a family visit. Might have been a holiday, might have been a reunion, who knows. While he was at, I believe an uncles house, OAD comes by. They exchange pleasantries and that is it. It’s a small town, if people don’t know other people they know who they are or who their family is.
Sanchez’s mother is childhood friends with OAD’s mother. They stay in touch, when they go to Mexico I imagine they get together. When OAD’s mother finds out her son was shot, she calls Sanchez’s mother, knowing her son is a BP agent, maybe he knows something. She then calls Sanchez who checks the records for a report of the shooting. There is none. He makes inquiries as to why there is no report and that is how the investigation starts.
AC implies the chance, brief meeting in Mexico is not a coincidence, further implying the Border Patrol agent Sanchez is dirty and working with OAD and for some drug cartel. He has no evidence other than his own conspiracies and on this he slimes the reputation of a career border patrol agent with a spotless record.
On this thread he tries to run away from it but on others he has stated this directly. I have two points. First, all this baloney about R&C supporters doing what they do because they want to stand up and support the stories and reputations of these two model agents is a ruse and smokescreen as they have no problem slamming any other agents that get in their way. Make no mistake, this has nothing to do with R&C and everything to do with illegal aliens.
Second, if Sanchez was dirty and working for a drug cartel, why would he expose it, why would he expose himself to possible scrutiny by making official inquiries about the incident? If he was working for a cartel the bosses would have told him to shut up and let it go...the last thing crime syndicates want is to come up on the radar of Federal authorities. Mules like OAD are a dime a dozen and easily replaced. Potentially exposing themselves or their mole in the BP to find out who shot OAD is dumb.
So don’t believe all this feigned outrage by R&C supporters over “the treatment” of these fine officers protecting our borders. They’re more than willing to throw other completely innocent officers over the side if it furthers their cause. IF you doubt me, go on any of these threads and ask those making the most noise how they believe Rene Sanchez is involved.
There is an old saying “patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel”. This doesn’t mean all patriots are scoundrels, but that some use it as a fig leaf to hide their own nefarious motives. Border security is a noble cause. Support for our Border Patrol is also a noble cause But feigning support for BP agents (while sliming others) to inflame passions in others and score some minor victory in their border issue is, IMO, shameful.
“IOW Vasquez is lying”
First Rene Sanchez is a dirty drug cartel bought off agent and now Vasquez is a dirty lying scum agent.
Any more Border Patril agents you want to slime so you can prove your support for the integrity and reputations of our fine men protecting the border?
You should check your facts before you fire off that peashooter. Most probably because you have not read the transcripts, a charge you level against others, you picked the wrong meeting to bloviate over.
Reynosa should give you a hint. The city they grew up in was close to Juarez and about 675 miles from Reynosa.
The meeting was brought up incidentally to a question concerning how Sanchez knew the occupation of OAD. In his testimony he described it as a chance meeting. Quite a chance.
8 Q. Okay. And when you sent your mother-in-law -- or suggested 9 to your mother-in-law that she -- she go to Mexico to meet with 10 Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, did you know what he did for a living? 11 A. Excuse me? 12 Q. Did you know how he was employed or what he did for a 13 living? 14 A. Yes. Before, I knew what he -- that he used to be a truck 15 driver. 16 Q. Okay. That he used to be a truck driver? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. Okay. How did you know that? 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. 22 Q. Okay. Okay. And was that a social visit or -- 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. Okay. Because I thought you had told Ms. Kanof you hadn't 25 seen him since you were about 16 -- 15, 16 years old. 1 A. I hadn't seen Sergio, his brother. 2 Q. Oh, okay. You had seen Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila? 3 A. Yes. 4 Q. Okay. And was this, the meeting that you -- or the visit 5 that you had in 2004, was that a chance meeting, or were you 6 going to some event together? 7 A. No, that was a chance meeting. 8 Q. Okay. What were you doing there? 9 A. I was visiting a friend of mine that is an engineer for 10 Delphi. We grew up in the same town, and that's how I ran into 11 Aldrete.
You will also note that despite your "intense" study of the trial transcripts, that mother-in-law is not mother. And when you are appointed as a chamberlain in a quinceanera it is not due to just a casual acquaintance with the family. You are either a family member or a very close friend. The whole point of this is to belie the idea that Rene was only vaguely familiar with the family of Aldrete-Davila.
Any "sliming" of BP agents has been done by you. In every case that I have stated that an agent was lying, history shows that they were.
Vasquez was fired for lying.
http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_5200281
Department of Homeland Security U.S. Customs and Border Protection Proposal for Removal documents were issued to Border Patrol agents David Jaquez and Arturo Vasquez on Jan. 29, and were signed by both agents. Jaquez and Vasquez could not be reached for comment. Their terminations are to take effect Feb. 28. Vasquez's proposal for removal shows that the agents changed their stories several times between their original interviews with Homeland Security Office of Inspector General investigators and their appearances in court.
No one can top you for sliming BP agents. You indicted the whole force with this .... "Yes, he changed his statement from supporting the “blue wall of silence” to admitting what he saw that day."
BTW, Border Patrol agents wear green.
Uhhh, you forgot to mention HOW they changed their story.
For those not up to speed on the transcripts, they went from saying NOTHING (ala Sergeant Schultz) to spilling the beans about what they knew.
In other words, they attempted to invoke the “blue wall of silence”, either for R&C and/or themselves, but when it became evident that other officers placed them in positions of hearing and seeing things, they eventually opened up.
They were fired for basically falsifying evidence. Telling all they knew about what happened that day kept them out of jail but they did lose their jobs.
AC twists this into accusing these “fine, upstanding BP agents who protect our borders” of perjuring themselves on the stand to convict R&C.
How many other BP agents you going to slime today?
So, are you accusing Border Patrol Agent Rene Sanchez with being a member of a Mexican drug cartel?
Pure BS. The two BP agents sang like birds within 1 day of the initial encounter with the investigative agents on Mar 17. At that time Juarez appeared without coersion to admit he was not telling the truth when he stated he know nothing about a shooting. He at that time admitted hearing shots. It was later under pressure that he stated he saw Compean shooting. That same day, Vasquez with lawyer in tow and proffer letter in hand, related that he had heard shots, conversed with Compean and then found and disposed of five casings. What he failed to mention at that time and several other times were the evidently made up things he later testified to. He was fired for that.
The "fine, upstanding BP agents who protect our borders" testified that had no concern at all about protecting those borders, since they did not come to the aid of Compean as Davila approached him. Had they done their duty, Davila would be sitting in jail on his pristine and whole posterior serving time for the crimes he committed then. Instead, they stood by as Compean and Ramos tried to do their duty.
http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/OIG_foia_RamosCompean.pdf
Hey, read what I wrote.
“What he failed to mention at that time and several other times were the evidently made up things he later testified to. He was fired for that.”
And what was that?
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.