Pardon Border Guards 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

"First, the other agents clearly testify that Ramos arrives ahead of Compean by around 10 feet(horrors)."

First, Compean later changes his testimony that it was more like 5-7 feet that separated him and Ramos. The "other agents" that saw R&C return all testified they were close enough to be talking to each other. Compean testified that as they turned to head back to the levee, Ramos was that distance ahead of him (because Ramos went to ge HIS shell casing and only had one to pickup), THEN he stopped to look for and retrieve his casings. The question still remains that if they started out in that configuration and Compean stopped to find and retrieve 9 shell casings from wherever they were ejected from his gun, how did they then arrive back at the levee together? Compeaqn then testifies that after he picked up the casings, he walked back and up the levee to retrieve his shotgun. Didn't run, didn't sprint, didn't even walk fast.

There is no way they could have arrived back together, as everyone on he scene testified, unless Ramos was with, and probably helping, Compean retrieve not only Comps shell casings but his own, since it was never found.

"Second, Compean did testify the separation of 10 feet but he did not say when that separation occurred."

Not true.

"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."

Huh? Both R&C testified he got down the levee and passed behind and to the left of Compean and ended up around 10 feet ahead of him and to the left. Compean then moved up and joined Ramos.

Your guess that Ramos took some divergent path back to the levee is worth less than speculation since nothing in the trial transcript would indicate what path he took. If anything, logic might dictate he took the same path.

"Who could have picked up Ramos casing? It certainly could have been Vasquez. He testified that he picked up casings."

Uhh, Vasquez picked up those casings at or near the top of the levee, not in the vega, which is coincidentally the same location that Juarez says he saw Compean fire from and where Compean says he didn't.

So you have two Agents putting Compean at or near the top of the levee while shooting while Compean says it was at the bottom after they "fell and struggled". Compean had to create this struggle because one it gave him the cover of being assaulted and two if he shot at the top of the levee that would have been before the "assault" and would have looked even worse in his attempt to justify the shoot.

All you have done CCG is prove what I’ve been stating, that the other officers started out with the “blue wall of silence” and then gradually came clean as it became apparent that they could get dragged into this mess R&C created and possible end up in jail.

To be fair, it was apparent to me that that was not the only consideration for these officers, there was a hint of CYA in their testimony, not coming fully clean on their own actions to mitigate their overall involvement, but also not making up facts out of whole cloth or creating lies about R&C.

But who would blame them? Ramos and Compean created this disaster out of their attempted cover up and ridiculous testimony, why should other officers risk gong to jail over it? The blue wall of silence has it’s limits and there was no reason for them to risk themselves and their families over it.

As it is, 3 other agents lost their jobs over not coming clean up front, but at least they didn’t end up in solitary like R&C. I think the situation R&C put them in to be horrible and inexcusable and that you and your cronies have ZERO empathy for their plight, the plight of their families and that they lost their jobs and can never work in law enforcement again. It tells me all I need to know about your “support” for the Border Patrol and those crocodile tears you shed every day for R&C.

You and your posse are hypocrites and liars. All you care about is white washing the illegal shooting of a fleeing suspect because that suspect turned out to be an alien Mexican. You could care less for the rank and file Border Patrol, the rule of law or the truth.

And that’s why I have no respect for you. You say you are a conservative but you aren’t because conservatives first and foremost are supporters of the constitution, the laws and the truth. They let the chips fall where they may, but the truth is the most important objective.

You’re just another poser pushing an agenda, a charlatan masquerading as a conservative. But I got your number and am not letting you off the hook.

"I am not certain that Compean stated those words over the radio..."

But you seem to have no trouble stating such as fact, do you?

"...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."

You must be getting your info from World Nut Job Daily, like most of the other R&C "supporters". Compean testified there was an alert from one of their motion sensors, went to investigate and saw a blue mini van leaving the area "at a high rate of speed". This part of the testimony peeked my interest because we all know it is cutomary for illegal alien drug mules with 700 lbs. of narcotics in the back of a van to leave the scene of the drop off speeding and kicking up clouds of dust to alert any LEO within a couple miles of their presence and location (sarcasm off).

When the van was picked up in town, it turned out to be a full size grey van, not a light blue mini, so those agents couldn't even be sure it was the same vehicle. When Compean heard this, he headed for the south side of the levee road at Jess Harris. This is Compeans total involvement up until the van reached the levee area.

Try reading the transcripts instead of relying on quazi tabloid rags like WNJD.

"This misapplication of the statute is at the crux of the matter and weakens law enforcement across the board."

Simply not true.

"This matter should never have come to court, but should have been handled as a departmental disciplinary matter."

Baloney. If no one had been shot, maybe true, but once they shot someone it became a matter for Homeland Security to investigate, which could eventually include criminal charges.

This is a favorite mantra of the "I support the Border Patrol and all it's agents, except those that testify truthfully against agents who shoot unarmed, fleeing suspects who (thank God) turn out to be Mexican national drug mules".

"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.

Like perjury.

"Sutton played hardball..."

Which came as a total surprise to the taxpayers who thought he was payed to play softball...

Again, a total surprise to the hundreds of prosecutors who routinely offer immunity to low level bad guys to get testimony to put the bigger fish away. Al Capone and John Gotti were absolutely floored by this development.

BTW - How exactly did you determine that OAD was a felon instead of just a suspect? I must have missed that trial.

"... to the point of overlooking crimes committed during the proceedings.

Nothing was overlooked. At the time all they had was the word of another low level drug mule/trafficker that OAD had dropped off a subsequent load elsewhere. The judge ruled this information was prejudicial and not germaine to the issue at hand, whether R&C had sufficient probable cause to shoot that day. This decision was upheld by the appeals court, which we should mention again was populated by three judges appointed by Ronald Reagan.

If you don't like the law, maybe you can get Hunter to hold a press conference and write a letter demanding GWB overturn constitutional liberties by declaring martial law and suspending habeas corpus.

Are you suggesting an outstanding, decorated, career Border Patrol agent is dirty and corrupt? My, who wonderfully "supportive" you are of the Agency and it's law enforcement officers. I guess everyone at the Border Patrol is dirty except Ramos and Compean because, you know, they shoot unarmed, fleeing illegal aliens.

'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."

By all means then, let's shoot first and ask questions later. That'll fix THAT problem.

"Ramos and Compean are not appropriate heroes, but neither did they get a fair shake."

R&C got their day in court. Unfortunately, instead of coming clean and telling the truth they decided fantastic stories and perjury suited them better.

That's what's disturbing to me, that R&C BELIEVED they could march into court, scream "black shiny object" and the whole illegal shooting would be swept under the rug.

That's scary.

Fair enough Tammy. You're saying that it isn't unusual for drug mules/traffickers to evade arrest once they believe they have been targeted by LEO’s.

Agreed. But you are engaging in a little debate sleight of hand. You pose the theory but then fail to demonstrate how that theory applies to the incident we are discussing.

Compean testified he was pretty far away and looking through field glasses when he spied the van moving out of the river/border area. If OAD believed he had been spotted at that point, according to your theory you would expect him to immediately get out of his van and simply run the 50-100 yards across the river and back to Mexico...this was the point where he was closest to it and there were no LEO’s in sight.

Instead, OAD leaves the area and drives into downtown Fabens...all the while driving the speed limit and observing traffic laws. He doesn't “take off” at a high rate of speed and until after Ramos gets behind him and “lights him up”.

So we would be compelled to conclude that OAD did not believe he had been spotted by LEO’s until that point. In fact, peeling out of the border area where he picked up the load would run contrary to logic, since at that point he did not know he was being watched and would in fact try to maintain a low profile so as not to draw attention.

Ramos was that distance ahead of him (because Ramos went to ge HIS shell casing and only had one to pickup),

Compean did not change his testimony about the distance. He was attempting to answer a question posed to him. He said about 10 feet and as he testified he was not good at distance measurement. That said, 5 or 10 feet is an insignificant quibble that you harp on to back up your theory. And if you are going to assert a lie or a changed testimony back it up from the testimony.

Although casings may go in many directions the most likely direction is to the right and back of the shooter. Since Ramos was to Compeans left and forward of him, that would have placed his casing most likely at the location of Compean's kneeling position. So instead of moving away from Compean, he would have remained close to Compean had Ramos gone to search for his casing.

How many times do people have to tell you that the testimony indicates that Ramos arrived prior to Compean. The same testimony you cite that states they were close enough to talk also indicates that Ramos was around 10 feet in front of Compean. Ten feet is well within talking distance.

Do you have any idea of the sequence of events there at the ditch? Compean picked up the casings on the way back from the vega. He states they were on the vega. Juarez places the shots on top of the levee. Wherever they were, they were to the south side of the ditch. Both Juarez and Compean place the shotgun on the south of the ditch. Juarez places it within the ditch. If we believe Juarez, Compean went down into the ditch and got the shotgun. But we know that happened as Yrigoyen was exiting his vehicle. We also know that Ramos had crossed the ditch back to the north prior to that from the same testimony. So what is the mystery to you since the retrieval of the shotgun occurred after R&C crossed the levee?

Huh? Both R&C testified he got down the levee and passed behind and to the left of Compean and ended up around 10 feet ahead of him and to the left. Compean then moved up and joined Ramos.

Your guess that Ramos took some divergent path back to the levee is worth less than speculation since nothing in the trial transcript would indicate what path he took. If anything, logic might dictate he took the same path.

It is obvious that Ramos came from behind Compean, that is where the ditch was. The other position variable is the lateral position( to the left, center or right) of Ramos with respect to Compean. We know he ended up to Compean's left. To get there he would most likely have started to the left of Compean. Had he started directly behind Compean he would have had to go around Compean Had he started to the right of Compean he would have had to have crossed in front of Compean. So the conclusion is that Ramos crossed the levee to Compean's left and ended up on Compean's left. Since the centroid of the circular area circumscribing the casings ejected from Compean's pistiol would have been to the right of Compean's pistol, it is readily apparent that the location of the ditch encounter was to the left of Compean and where Ramos also crossed the levee. Heading back to that location(to the left of Compean's shooting position) would have taken Ramos away from the location of Compean's casings.

Uhh, Vasquez picked up those casings at or near the top of the levee, not in the vega, which is coincidentally the same location that Juarez says he saw Compean fire from and where Compean says he didn't.

Well, if Compean fired near the top of the levee, where are the other 6 casings from the first magazine. And how is it that no one saw Compean retrieve his magazine from near the top of the levee? That is easily answered, Compean did not fire from near the top of the levee. Juarez and Vasquez lied.

Compean described the struggle in his initial interrogation in Mar 2005. It is verified by the statement entered into the record by Chris Sanchez about the interrogation. His description remained the same from day one until the testimony. Juarez and Vasquez only discovered their story and a few prompts by the government.

misapplication of the statute
The court decided to apply the statute because their theory was the BP Officers had committed a criminal act. This law was intended for use against criminals, Not law enforcement, even if their acts are later found to be criminal. Whole 'nuther body of law covers that. I'll go with whatever SCOTUS says on this one.

"This matter should never have come to court, but should have been handled as a departmental disciplinary matter."
Yup. dirty low-down scumbag drug-smuggling perps are shot by cops every day when they shouldn't have been. Cop gets reprimanded, kicked off the force, forfeits pay, put on leave without pay while it gets sorted out by review board, etc. etc.

Maybe they ought to have been fired, or even jailed, just like ordinary bad-boy cops who try the "made a furtive move toward his waistband" defense for bad shootings of scumbags lucky enough to survive to make their case. Not put in the slammer for 10 years.

"... pressure applied at the highest levels by the Mexican Government."
QED to the satisfaction of many, including myself.

"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"
Bob J, if you think it's OK for BP Officers to consort or buddy up with drug mules, give them money, arrange for them to freely cross the border, and get them medical care, I guess it's OK. BTW, Sanchez travelled miles out of his assigned territory on this mission. Worth a question or two? Perhaps it's just me, but this aspect of the case is troubling.

"R and C were NOT well represented,"
Babes in the woods. Out-gunned, out-spent, out-thought.
Like Perjury ....
As opposed to the truth-telling by OAD?

<"Sutton played hardball..."

Hardball is fair. But when Sutton went and got OAD through Sanchez, offered him immunity, then did not drop the case, or even tell the judge, when OAD should have been held on the crime he committed while under immunity, releasing him in fact, he, IMHLO, played foul ball. Again, I suppose this will wend its way up to SCOTUS, and we'll see.

"Ramos and Compean are not appropriate heroes, but neither did they get a fair shake."
R and C are, again IMHO, typical BP Officers, most of whom strike me as being no better than they have to be in an intensely corrupt enviroment, i.e., the corrupt Latin American milieu that has grown up in the Border Lands, La Zona de Tolerancia.

Are you suggesting an outstanding, decorated, career Border Patrol agent is dirty and corrupt?

I'm willing to entertain the possibility that Rene Sanchez is a decorated outstanding agent. All you have to do is provide documentation for such a claim. I have to warn you that this is included in the testimony and questioning of Chris Sanchez.


4 MS. STILLINGER: He just said -- I think Rene
5 Sanchez's credibility is relevant. I think his evaluation --
6 THE COURT: How are you impeaching his credibility
7 with that?
8 MS. STILLINGER: Well, Ms. Kanof had him testify a lot
9 about who he believed and who he didn't believe and the steps
10 he took in his investigation, based on what he believed and
11 what he didn't believe. This guy gets a memo in July, where
12 somebody is saying -- not terrible, but saying, I have concerns
13 about Rene Sanchez. And it's not terrible, but he seems
14 unusually well informed.
15 This witness does -- instead of investigating it, he
16 turns the memo over to Rene Sanchez, so Rene Sanchez can call
17 Blanchette and say, Why are you writing these things about me?
18 It's not normal behavior.
19 It's not normal behavior, I don't think, for an OIG
20 agent to turn over an investigatory memo within hours of having
21 received it, turn it over to the subject of the memo. And I
22 think that shows his bias in this investigation.
23 THE COURT: I guess my concern is, this guy has
24 already been indicted, has he not?
25 MS. STILLINGER: Right. But this -- this is the same
1 time period when he was yelling at other agents and getting
2 them to come clean because he doesn't believe them.
3 THE COURT: That memo is dated July of '05?
4 MS. STILLINGER: Yes.
5 THE COURT: So this investigation is essentially
6 completed and turned over.
7 MR. ANTCLIFF: The interviews were in mid-September
8 with the U.S. agents.
9 MR. PETERS: Not to mention there's two additional
10 superseding indictments.
11 THE COURT: But what about this memo tells him that
12 Rene Sanchez has lied about anything regarding this
13 investigation? As a matter of fact, it confirms that, although
14 he may be involved in something shady, his information tends to
15 be very credible, as I recall. So how does this impeach Rene
16 Sanchez's work or put this guy -- I'm concerned about his
17 credibility.
18 MS. STILLINGER: Well, everything impeaches this guy
19 with regard to Rene Sanchez, because of what he did with the
20 information.

Who was indicted? Who was yelling at other agents because he doesn't believe them?

Ramos marched into court? Compean stated that he saw a shiny object in Mar 2005 when first interrogated. You're claiming that Ramos and Compean planned this as a defense on 17 February on their less than a minute trek back from the vega?

“Compean testified there was an alert from one of their motion sensors, went to investigate and saw a blue mini van leaving the area “at a high rate of speed”.

“When the van was picked up in town, it turned out to be a full size grey van, not a light blue mini, so those agents couldn’t even be sure it was the same vehicle.”

Here is the testimony:

“Volume 2013.pdf

Compean testimony starting on page 144.

16 Q. All right. So now you’re up on the levee. What do you do
17 then?
18 A. I was just watching the area with my binoculars. I just
19 kept watching.
20 Q. And what do you see next?
21 A. I don’t remember if I heard — there was sensor activation,
22 and it — the 76 port 1.
23 Q. How do you know there was sensor activation?
24 A. Through sector communications. They were calling out a
25 sensor taking hits.
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Compean - Direct by Mr. Antcliff 145
1 Q. Okay. Did you hear it over the radio?
2 A. Yes, sir, I did.
3 Q. I see. And what do you do when you hear that?
4 A. I began to look north of that area. That’s the area I had
5 already been watching.
6 Q. And do you see anything?
7 A. Not at first. Approximately 15 to 20 seconds later I saw
8 what looked like a blue van leaving the area pretty fast.
9 Q. And what did you do in response to that?
10 A. I then called it out on the radio to the other agents.
11 Q. What did you call out?
12 A. I believe I called out a blue van leaving the 76 area at a
13 high rate of speed, or going fast. I don’t remember the exact
14 words.
15 Q. Were there other agents working in the Fabens station, or
16 sector, whatever it’s called, that day?
17 A. Yes, sir, there was.
18 Q. And so what did you expect would happen in response to your
19 call?
20 A. I expected them to start heading towards my area —
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. — to assist.
23 Q. Did you hear any radio traffic after you make that call?
24 A. Yes, sir, I did.
25 Q. What do you hear?
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Compean - Direct by Mr. Antcliff 146
1 A. I believe the first person I heard was Agent Juarez. I
2 believe he mentioned he was near the — near the Martinez
3 orchard. I don’t remember exactly. But he said he was headed
4 that way.
5 Q. Did you call out a minivan?
6 A. No, sir, I did not.
7 Q. Okay. Where do you go, from your position on the levee,
8 after you see the van?
9 A. The first thing I did, as soon as I called out the blue van
10 leaving the area, after I got a response, I then switched my
11 radio to — to direct. And then I gave them a better
12 description of the vehicle. I — I told them it was going to
13 be a light blue van, maybe a gray van, but it was going to be a
14 full-sized van.”

Compean did NOT refer to the van as a mini van.

Also, I have seen a number of vehicles that look one color in the sunlight and another in the shade, or at night. Gray to blue or blue to gray is not unusual.

Compean did NOT refer to the van as a mini van.

Here is the definitive testimony on that subject. The repeater channel is the recorded one and is the channel that the original call would have been made. It is known because it is the call at 1311 that establishes the initial time. The final relevant call on the tape is at 1328. Juarez and Jacquez are the two agents that somehow heard "minivan". That word as indicated in the testimony is not present on the tapes.

Jacquez testimony vol 10 page 84.



3 Q. Now you say that he said a minivan. Have you reviewed the
4 transcript of the recorded radio traffic, which was -- which
5 was produced, I believe, by Agent Sanchez?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. It doesn't say a minivan on that transcript, does it?
8 A. No, sir.
9 Q. Are you sure he said a minivan?
10 A. After the -- I think that's what I heard, sir.
11 Q. Okay. Do you know whether you were on the rim rock
12 channel, whether Compean was on the rim rock channel when he
13 made that statement?
14 A. I believe so.
15 Q. Well, if he was on a rim rock, then it would have been --
16 what he said would have been on that transcript, correct?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. And if he said minivan and it's not on that transcript,
19 then either he didn't say minivan or he was on another channel,
20 right?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. Because you-all use other channels besides the rim rock
23 channel, correct?
24 A. Correct.

Jacquez testimony above establishes two things, that Compean was on the repeater(rim rock) when he made the call, and that the transcript of the repeater recording does not contain the word minivan. Jacquez misheard.

"Compean did NOT refer to the van as a mini van."

Uhhh, according to COMPEAN. Other agent(s) testified he said blue mini van. But your missing the point (as usual and right on cue). I have no doubt the van Compean radioed in was the same van driven by OAD and picked up in Fabens. But due to the discrepancy between the description and what was eventually encountered, there should have been some dount in the other agents minds that they might not be the same vehicle.

"Also, I have seen a number of vehicles that look one color in the sunlight and another in the shade, or at night. Gray to blue or blue to gray is not unusual."

Fair enough. Tell me, what was the light and weather conditions under which Compean first witnessed the van loaded with 700lbs of pot burning rubber out of the border area and then, 10 minutes later, in the middle of town in Fabens? Do you think the conditions changed significantly or are you also engaging in some debate sleight of hand? People do that when their argument is so weak they have no other choice...you know.

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.