Posted on 08/04/2008 10:15:39 AM PDT by kellynla
What happened to justice in America? It certainly wasn’t served on July 28 when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the unjust convictions of Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. As it stands today, these two brave border protectors must now serve out their full 10-plus-year sentences for shooting and wounding a Mexican drug smuggler they encountered while he was carrying a million-dollar payload of narcotics along the Southern border in Texas. What started off as simple procedural mistakes by the agents has turned into an unimaginable travesty of justice unlike anything I’ve ever seen in my 30 years in Washington, D.C.
It’s difficult to reconcile why U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton would choose to seek out drug smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, in Mexico to offer him immunity, unconditional border-crossing cards and free medical care in exchange for his testimony against the border agents. Ramos and Compean did not wake up the morning of Feb.17, 2005, with the intention of committing a crime, unlike the illegal alien drug-smuggling “victim.” They put on their uniforms, strapped their weapons around their waists and pinned on their badges, as they had for five and 10 years respectively, with the intention of patrolling our borders to protect America.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
Like I said, it’s more complicated than that. When Ramos stipulated to the bullet, it shifted the burden of proof from the government to R&C. Instead of the prosecution having to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that R&C committed assault (vs. self defense), the burden was now on the border agents to put forth an affirmative defense—that they shot (at) Aldrete-Davila but that they were justified in doing so.
Like I said, the stipulation was a fatal flaw (IMO).
Greanted, but you were vouching for it. You presented it as open and honest, which it certainly is not. The process is designed to protect the sham legal system. That is what shaped my opinion on what you are made of.
“I have no sympathy for what Ramos and Campeon did. A suspect was shot without justification, he was clubbed with a shotgun butt (where do you find that tactic in any police training manual?), and they tried to obstruct justice.”
Interesting that you say that. Border Patrol’s job is to prevent an invasion from another country, not police.
The agents were trained to prevent an invasion from another country, which is an act of war, not simply police the area. Why should it be OK for another country to invade us, but not OK for us to prevent it?
Too many today seem to think that policing and securing our nation are equal. They are not equal. They are 2 very different jobs for 2 very different reasons and involve 2 very different types of tactics. This is not a police action, this is a national defense action. This should have been thrown out of court as soon as the evidence showed that the whole situation started with sensors going off on the border and no other explanation for that was brought to court.
“and if there is no pardon the GOP can kiss my votes goodbye”
Interesting, in that the GOP are the loudest proponents to overturn or pardon this mess, and those are the ones you want to throw under the bus.
Are you voting Dem this time around?
“The trier of fact, in this case the jury, decides what facts are worthy of belief and weight, and their findings won’t be overturned on appeal abuse of discretion, proof of prosecutorial misconduct (concealing evidence from the defense) or newly discovered evidence. Since the defense knew about the evidence but couldn’t get it in, it won’t enter into the court’s decision absent the above abuse of discretion.”
If it was not entered into evidence, the jury did not hear it to weigh it.
“Seriously, isn’t he something like a 10-year veteran of the Border Patrol? Some sort of a firearms instructor? Why would he stipulate to something so fundamental (and critical) to his case based upon a “maybe?””
Pride, maybe.
“I don’t see how you can turn around and argue (a variation of) “you can’t prove my client did the shooting.” The full weight of all the corroborating evidence places Ramos, Compean, and Aldrete-Davila at the scene, and that a shooting occurred.”
And none of it proves, either that Davila was unarmed, or that Compean or Ramos hit Davila.
“Yes, I understand that. They admitted firing their weapons with reason. Whether or not they hit him is irrelevent to assault. In other words, had the agents stated they fired their weapons over the head of Davila in an attempt to scare him and the bullets had missed, they would have still been guilty of assault.”
So, according to you, border patrol agents can not tell someone crossing into our borders to stop, then send a threat, without being charged with assault.
Please go create your own country based on this premise, then tell me how long you were able to keep it.
Assault is a term meant for the criminals, not the enforcers of the law.
Why do you have such a difficult time understanding plain English? I clearly stated that I thought Ramos and Compean did the right thing. They fired at Davila with cause. He refused to obey lawful commands and then made threatening motions. I went on to say that whether he had been hit or not was irrelevant to assault even if the officers had acted incorrectly which they, in my opinion, did not. Now if you don't understand that, get a life.
You might think that it (along with the full range of other corroborating evidence, including subsequent questionable behavior by Compean and Ramos, that allows the jury to infer otherwise) doesn't prove that Compean or Ramos hit Aldrete-Davila, but the jury disagrees with you. And now the 5th Circuit:
Aldrete-Davila’s own testimony, the behavior of the defendants after the shooting, and the inconsistent testimony offered by both defendants and other Border Patrol agents allowed the jury to conclude that the defendants faced no credible threat and, consequently, there was no justification for their firing upon Aldrete-Davila. Although disputed, the evidence, taken in the light most favorable to the jury verdict, supports the scenario that Aldrete-Davila fled toward the Mexican border after Compean took a swing at him with his shotgun and that, while he was in flight, the defendants without provocation fired their weapons at him several times.
All that means is that the jury did not flip a coin. First of all the rationale that somehow using the shotgun to block or impede the charge of Davila was somehow overkill. Davila refused commands to stop with guns pointed at him. In the testimony the prosecution even suggested that he should have had his "billy club" out for use. What difference is a beaning from a club or the butt of a shotgun? The prosecution was implicitly supporting the level of control they were at the same time impugning.
Juarez lied. Juarez changed his story at least three times. Juarez was about to be fired for the lies he had given but he resigned prior to that firing. Had Juarez seen Compean firing from the top of the levee as he testified, Vasquez should have also seen Compean firing. He was immediately behind Juarez. On top of that Compean was supposed to have done a magazine exchange from the top of the levee. A magazine exchange takes time. After you have stopped firing and while you are releasing the "spent" magazine, you must reach to your belt, release the cover of the magazine holster, extract the magazine, insert the magazine into the pistol, and then resume firing. Davila testified that there was no pause in the shooting except for the last shot which was Ramos as he arrived. Davila's testimony is consistent on this point with the testimonies of Ramos and Compean. Compean was on one knee, fumbling with the magazine which he never got into his pistol in order to fire again. That makes entire sense. Compean is fat. A holster on his belt while he is on one knee would be nearly impossible to easily manipulate. Point being, not all the testimony was evidently analyzed.
The 5th Circuit found no reversible errors or evidentiary problems with the way the trial court handled the case. Ramos and Compean are down to one last bite of the apple (excerpting pardons or commutations of sentence).
I am also mildly disturbed by the way certain memes were repeated enough times that they became accepted as truth (not pointing my finger at you, specifically, but people need to understand that simply repeating the arguments of the National Border Patrol Council does not "prove" anything). For example, the claim that § 924(c) did not apply here--lots of people repeated it (journalists, radio hosts, some U.S. Congressmen), and it wasn't until I read the 5th Circuit opinion myself that I discovered that not only does it apply but that its application is settled case law in this jurisdiction. I mean, c'mon, the misinformation flying around here was tremendous.
My point? We need to treat the jury verdict the same way the 5th Circuit treats it . . . unless we were sitting in that courtroom every day ourselves.
That is B.S. We have the full testimony online. We have photos taken at the scene. We have weather reports. And I did something the jury did not do. I went to the ditch. I drove the path. I measured the dimensions of the ditch. So to say that we do not have the right to analyze the data for ourselves is an arrogant limitation you may place on yourself, but I'm not limited by your credulity. Juries make mistakes. I am sure that this one did. I have presented the reasons why I think so.
Big drug dealers can afford to buy a lot of people.
Yes, that’s precisely the point: if the appellate court decides that the judge improperly excluded evidence that would have made a difference in whether the jury found them guilty, the appellate court could find the judge abused his discretion and send the case back for another jury trial.
They could also find he abused his discretion but that it was “harmless error”: that it wouldn’t have made a difference. in which case there’s no new trial and the verdict stands as is.
NOTE: the above is an explanation of procedure, not a defense of “the evil justice system”.
I presented it as an explanation of how the process works, not as “vouching for it”. Anything that involves people is by its very nature susceptible to abuse.
Knof = Kanof
I think you were right the first time. Knof is Fonk spelled backwards.
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.