In other words, Johnny Sutton and Company started this ball rolling by bringing charges they clearly did not have to and, given past rulings, Sutton&Co is therefore responsible for this travesty despite Johnny Sutton's baseless assertions that he had no choice and it is all Congress's fault given mandatory sentencing.Here, whether to prosecute defendants Ramos and Compean under this statute was a matter of prosecutorial discretion; once a prosecutor decides to prosecute a law enforcement officer who has similarly used his weapon against a fleeing, suspected felon, the officer may stand trial for a violation of § 924(c). We can surely debate whether there is an intuitive distinction between a violent criminal or a drug trafficker using a gun during the course of their trade and a police officer using a gun against a fleeing felon; however, neither the statute nor the cases make such a distinction.
Regardless, it's time for Congress to get busy and clarify the language in the law so that law enforcement officers aren't hindered in performing their duties.
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.