Posted on 07/28/2008 11:46:09 AM PDT by Nachum
In a complex decision, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the major counts against former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean but reversed the obstruction of justice counts and sent the case back to a lower court for resentencing.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
They should have dropped all charges, awarded them back pay and restitution for false imprisonment, and given them a hero’s homecoming.
From the Court's Opinion:
"The government’s evidence showed that the agents had no reason to shoot the drug smuggler—that he had abandoned his van loaded with marijuana, that he was running on foot back to Mexico, that he posed no physical threat to either officer, and that he was shot in the buttocks. It is well established that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution does not permit officers to shoot a fleeing suspect unless the suspect poses a threat to the physical safety of the officers or to the public."
The fact that he was turning to shoot at them was no reason...
One mistake of many. Over half a year looking at the "facts" of the testimony and they can't get the "facts" right!?
Agent Juarez testified that, after arriving at the scene, he saw Aldrete- Davila get out of the van and move quickly into the ditch and up the other side.
NOT in the testimony. Juarez first saw Davila in the ditch.
Ramos testified that, after he had stopped his car behind Aldrete-Davila’s van, he saw Aldrete-Davila evade Compean at the ditch, but saw no confrontation of the type described by the other witnesses.
Ramos saw that Davila was likely to evade Compean. Ramos then lost visual contact with the two as he entered the ditch to cross and help Compean.
After making sure that he was alone, Agent Vasquez found four spent casings and threw them into the water in the irrigation ditch.
Four?
To say I am disappointed would be a gross understatement. But, I cannot say I am surprised. Because of how long they sat on this appeal I was prepared for the worst.
I will read the court's finding in a while, but for now my major objections are these:
Why did Sutton use U.S.C. Section 924(c) when members of the Congress say it was never intended for law enforcement officers? [And why was the jury not adequately informed of the consequences of that charge?]
Why was Ramos convicted under 924(c)since he did not see the initial confrontation between Compean and Davila, but did hear the shots being fired. That should have justified his use of deadly force.
Why was Aldrete-Davila allowed to testify that he was only a one time low level drug smuggler when Sutton's office knew that was untrue and Davila’s immunity supposedly depended on his not lying.
Sutton is already crowing about this. The man is despicable and shows no regret whatsoever for creating so much of the injustice of the sentencing by imposing the 924(c) charge.
Yeah... it was four (pg 40, Volume 20, Vasquez testimony). They did get that one right.
I share your sentiment. :-(
Still lots of unanswered questions.
Maybe Judicial Watch will be successful in getting DOJ to respond to their FOIA requests. I’d sure like to know why the Department of Diplomatic Security Service was involved from day one.
I’ll prefer from this point forward to discuss the case with people who have read the opinion.
No, there were five. Page 44 of the Vasquez testimony.
4 Q. You watched them sink? 5 A. Yes ma'am. 6 Q. Then you said you -- there's just four depicted in that 7 photograph. Was there another one? 8 A. Yes ma'am. 9 MS. KANOFF: May I approach the witness, Your Honor? 10 THE COURT: Yes, you may. 11 Q. I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Government's 12 Exhibit Number 22, another photograph. Is this photograph a 13 fair and accurate representation of the location of the fifth 14 casing that you located? 15 A. That's correct ma'am.
Remember, it was that fifth one that the prosecution harped on since it was alledged to be on the north slope of the levee, not on top of the levee where the other four were. It indicated to them that the shooter shot from the north side of the levee. That is patently preposterous, since Davila would then be required to be on top or near to the top of the levee, if the shooter was Compean. If it was Ramos' casing, then the shot would not have just been a spectacular shot, it would have been a miraculous shot.
You're right.
p.40, Vasquez: 9 A. When I got there, I just sat on my vehicle for a while, 10 made sure nobody was there. Got off the vehicle, started 11 walking around. And I found four casings in the levee, one 12 between the levee and the drain canal on the slope. I got them 13 all and threw them into the drainage canal. 14 Q. Total number of casings you found? 15 A. Five.
That was probably the only count where they were actually guilty. The more serious charges should have been overturned, and this one left in place if they wanted to be just.
Thanks for the link. Looks like the type of judicial restraint that conservatives usually applaud. (Deference to the legislative branch, deference to the jury’s findings of fact.)
I still think the jury was wrong about the shooting, but it’s hard to fault the appellate court.
Information provided by a drug dealer and illegal invader - very reliable source.
This was a political lynching carried out for the benefit of the Mexican government.
We’d prefer that only people intelligent enough to recognize the difference between a political opinion and a judicial opinion post here.
Your blatant anti-american posture is so tiring.
Please let me know, I don't want anyone to think I'm anti-American. /sarc
“What was the crime they were in the commision of when they discharged their fire arms?”
Violence, according to the court.
Si senor
I don’t speak Spanish, and I would prefer that you use the English language when addressing me.
Since a prosecuter pretty much has discretion on any charges, it is meaningless to suggest a special significance to this claim.
If I remember correctly, the prosecuter was at some point looking for a plea bargain.
I think it has always been clear that Sutton believed these two agents acted illegally, and wanted to charge and convict them, and did so finding as many different charges as could legally be applied to the case.
The other prosecuters agreed, his boss signed off, a judge allowed it, a jury found it acceptable beyond a reasonable doubt, and now an appeals court has upheld it.
Bush has the legal right to pardon or commute the sentence. He also has a legal right to do nothing at all.
I do not support a blanket immunity from this law for law enforcement officers. As I said elsewhere, I would support a modification to the law so that the mandatory sentences only applied to acts the LEO takes as part of the felony for which he is separately found guilty.
Meaning if they were already on duty, and it isn’t shown that the officer planned to commit a felony while on duty, they would not get the 5-year mandatory sentence for carrying a weapon; they could still get 5 years for brandishing and shooting the weapon if they do so in the commission of a felony.
But if anything, an LEO who commits a felony, especially while on duty, should be punished more severely, because they are charged with keeping the peace, and have a special obligation not to commit acts of violence.
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.