Posted on 08/14/2008 8:56:19 AM PDT by average american student
U.S. Border Patrol Agents are Still in Prison!
Call the White House and Tell President Bush to Pardon Ramos and Compean!
On February 17, 2005, U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean were guarding the Mexican border near El Paso, TX when they intercepted a van carrying 743 pounds of marijuana. They attempted to prevent a Mexican drug-smuggler from crossing the border and illegally entering the United States. After the U.S. government intervened and granted immunity and a temporary visa to the illegal drug-smuggler in exchange for testimony against Ramos and Compean, the two border guards were convicted for allegedly shooting one bullet into the man’s buttocks and for failing to report the discharge of their firearms.
They were given 11-and 12-year sentences and remain in solitary confinement in a medium security prison.On July 28, 2008, a 3-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the prison sentences and 7 of the 12 charges that were brought against the two border guards, but overturned the charge that they obstructed justice by failing to report the incident. Although their alleged violation deserved only an administrative reprimand, the 5th Circuit Court upheld the mandatory minimum 10-year prison sentences for “discharging a firearm during the commission of a crime of violence.” This law, known as Section 924(c) of the U.S. Code, has always been interpreted to apply to criminals, not law enforcement officers engaged in their official duties.
Not only has the 5th Circuit unjustly ruled to deny freedom to our brave border guards, but they have now set a dangerous precedent which will no doubt intimidate law enforcement officers all over the United States. We simply cannot have a national policy of intimidating our border guards from intercepting drug-smugglers or even defending themselves against those who should be presumed to be armed and dangerous
“Then by all means, shoot the duck.”
Noo, do what Pinocchio J would do:
ignore the 700 lbs of pot the duck was smuggling,
take the side of the duck,
prosecute the duck hunter,
and when the duck is sent to prison for smuggling yet another load of pot just keep on pretending the duck told the absolute truth during that trial.
The fact is, Pinocchio, you’re no different than Lefties who used to make elaborate excuses for their communist heros. No amount of evidence would ever make them swallow their pride and admit that they were useful idiots for criminals.
Sutton’s pot smuggling truthful witness is now in prison. Looks like he was never the honest witness Sutton claimed he was. Of course Sutton knew this all along because Sutton knew of the second load during the trial. He just didn’t want the jury to learn about it.
The jurors didn’t know, and were duped by Sutton into believing the drug smuggler was a credible witness. You do know- so what’s your excuse?
Duck hunters intend to shoot ducks.
What’s scary on these threads is the implication from some that they expect their LEO’s to be duck hunters.
They didn’t destroy any evidence.
In this particular instance, they have’t, violating even their own agency rules. And it’s been proven that they lied and can’t back up their ‘story’ before a jury of their peers.
C’mon, people. Let us NOT be defending the indefensible.
Supposedly, the President and all the members of Congress took similar oaths, have failed much worse regarding their obligations on border security,
And it’s been proven that they lie repeatedly and can’t back up their ‘stories’ before the people they supposedly represent.
And yet, none of these treasonous politicians are doing their 7 to 12 years in solitary confinement.
C’mon, people. Let us NOT be defending the indefensible.
“Supposedly, the President and all the members of Congress took similar oaths...”
I wouldn’t lump the Great One (Ronald Reagan) with Congresscritters, though.
Oh, you mean this current crop? Well, I can name a few that ought not to be lumped with them, either. I can name a few that makes this issue worth fighting for. The Hon. Reps. Tancredo and departing member Rep. Duncan Hunter.
What happened to Ramos's casing? If Ramos was 10' ahead of Compean on the return and Compean stopped to locate and pickup his 9 casings at the bottom of the levee, how did they arrive back at the top of the levee together as other agents testified?
The only conclusion is Ramos also retrieved and disposed of his own shell casing and assisted Compean with getting his. Ramos might not have admitted it in court, but IMO he engaged in the same tampering/destruction as Compean.
Still trying to peddle your fantasy?
First, the other agents clearly testify that Ramos arrives ahead of Compean by around 10 feet(horrors). Second, Compean did testify the separation of 10 feet but he did not say when that separation occurred. Logic using the testimony would indicate that the separation occurred as Compean went to pick up his magazine. Since Ramos entered the scenario on the vega to Compean's left, it is pretty obvious that to get back to the point that Ramos crossed the levee to get to the vega Ramos would be taken in a direction away from the magazine. Thus the separation occurred as Compean went to retrieve his magazine. You will recall that Compean joined Ramos by walking up to him after Ramos shot at Davila. Davila verifies this in his testimony. So Ramos and Compean were "together" at the beginning and end of their trek back from the vega(separated by around 10 feet at the end). So if the 10 feet testified to by Compean was not that at the end, how and why did Ramos get 10 feet away from Compean before Compean started picking up his casings. If Ramos helped Compean pick up his casings it was not at that point and the distance would not have grown. Plus Ramos lone casing was there at the position Ramos stood when firing his last shot. So Ramos would have picked up his casing first if we follow your fantastic story. Who could have picked up Ramos casing? It certainly could have been Vasquez. He testified that he picked up casings.
1. March 17, 2005, first contact with OIG. Juarez tells C. Sanchez he knows nothing about a shooting. p.83: 2. March 18, 2005, second contact with OAD (1st interview) Offered immunity (proffer agreement) by USAO. Juarez tells C.Sanchez that, after sleeping on it, he recalled hearing one or two shots. Juarez gave interview and written statement. Says he never saw Compean shoot at anything. He got to scene and went directly to van. Looks in van, sees marijuana and is checking for weapon. While doing that, he hears one or two shots and hears someone yell "shots." He said he disregarded shots and continued what he was doing in van.
3. April 25, 2005, third contact (2nd interview). Still under immunity, now has an attorney. Juarez now says he didn't go straight to van, but in this statement says he saw Compean and OAD six to eight feet apart, somewhere near the ditch.
4. September 27, 2005, fourth contact (3rd interview). Still under immunity. Sanchez says that Juarez was "told he would be indicted if he didn't tell the truth". Sanchez says Juarez's new story is "wholesale different from first interview." Everything at scene changes--only thing that remains the same is his driving to the scene. Sanchez says Juarez added "a lot of new information" but he still doesn't believe him. (story presumably same as his testimony, but Sanchez didn't elaborate).
5. February 23/24, 2006, Testimony, fifth story -- Juarez arrived at the scene "seconds" behind Ramos. Sees Compean standing at "port arms" on other side of ditch. Gets out of vehicle but doesn't see Ramos or OAD. (Jacquez testimony that Juarez told him he saw Ramos). Immediately proceeds to enter ditch. After entering, sees OAD about 8 or ten feet away, on the same side of the ditch but does not try to apprehend--says he was "just observing". OAD crosses ditch through water. Juarez says he never pulled his gun because he felt it was no threat--that OAD just "wanted to go back where he came from." Says Compean tried to block OADs path out of the ditch and took a "full swing" at OAD with butt of shotgun. Says OAD raised hands to try to block Compean (had nothing in hands). Compean lost balance, fell, and dropped shotgun "inside the canal.". OAD runs up levee. Juarez "watched Compean getting up and leaving the shotgun there and start after him". Juarez then turns around and climbs back out of ditch (toward van) just in time to see Compean take some shots, exchange his magazine and shoot a couple more as he is halfway down the southern slope of the levee (how can someone see over a hill?). After seeing/hearing shots, says he didn't fear for Compean's safety because Compean had the shotgun, a "pretty lethal weapon" (despite the fact that by the time shots were fired, Juarez said Compean had dropped shotgun in ditch). While standing near van at ditch, Vasquez arrives..... and so on... (many more inconsistencies).
He did? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell ya?
After listening to Sutton's prosecutor, Kanof, I could have sworn that Aldrete-Davila was just a poor commercial truck driver, trying to earn some token change for mama's hospital bills, a man who didn't even know that he had a million dollars worth of marijuana in the back of the van and wouldn't recognize marijuana if he saw or smelled it! That poor fella led the BP agents on a 10 mile hi-speed chase, failed to stop despite orders and pistols and a shot-gun being aimed at him, because he just wanted to go home to Mexico.
How dare the BP agents interfere with what would have otherwise been a profitable day for him!
/s
PING!
RAMOS/COMPEAN Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on or off this list.
Apologies to all for that second ping (I already pinged y’all yesterday)—I thought this was a new thread.
Thanks! I just pinged that one.
What isn’t scary is some sob-sister who continues to hold the hand of the poor underprivileged drug smuggler.
““... then Compean radioed in that he was following a van that acted like illegal drug drivers act.”
Are you certain of that?”
I am not certain that Compean stated those words over the radio, but I did read that that was his reasoning for radioing that the van was suspected of having illegal drugs, as opposed to illegal aliens or just bad driving or whatever else.
“The only conclusion is Ramos also retrieved and disposed of his own shell casing and assisted Compean with getting his. Ramos might not have admitted it in court, but IMO he engaged in the same tampering/destruction as Compean.”
I must disagree with this “only conclusion” of yours. When I get into a an odd situation, sometimes I get nervous, or just plain scared. Sometimes walking it off helps to clear the mind.
bttt
This misapplication of the statute is at the crux of the matter and weakens law enforcement across the board.
This matter should never have come to court, but should have been handled as a departmental disciplinary matter. It came to court, IMO, as a result of pressure applied at the highest levels by the Mexican Government.
R and C were NOT well represented, and made quite a number of bad legal choices. Sutton played hardball, and skated well outside the rules with his use of an immunized felon to the point of overlooking crimes committed during the proceedings.
The involvement of René Sanchez with this criminal is absolutely unbelievable and should be investigated on its own. The Border Patrol operations in these sectors are obviously corrupt in some part, hopefully not as corrupt as the Mexican side of the operation.
Our southern border is apparently an almost lawless "Zona de Tolerancia" in which the rules by which law and order are kept in other parts of the country are not in full force. Drug money has made it dirty.
Ramos and Compean are not appropriate heroes, but neither did they get a fair shake. It is a disgraceful affair.
One thing that needs to be understood is that Bob J is not a Border patrol Agent and does not know how the Border Patrol operates. Bob J adheres only to Johnny Sutton’s propoganda and does not care for the actuall facts of the case.
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.