Posted on 09/12/2008 6:00:19 AM PDT by kellynla
EL PASO, Texas — Two former Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a drug smuggler and trying to cover it up have been denied a request for a new hearing.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans denied the request by Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean on Wednesday. The same court upheld the men's convictions in July.
No reason was given for the Wednesday's denial.
Ramos and Compean are each serving sentences of more than 10 years for shooting Osvaldo Aldrete Davila in the buttocks while he was fleeing from an abandoned marijuana load in 2005.
Aldrete was sentenced to 9 1/2 years in prison for his role in two seperate smuggling efforts later that same year.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsmax.com ...
Dred Scott was a decision made by the “final authority”, the United States Supreme Court. That decision was not the final say. So “res judicata, a thing decided.” is not a reason to stop looking or deciding.
Yeah, right "genius".
Do you have access to subsection 3.H. ?
H. Reportable Shooting Incident - A reportable shooting incident means any incident involving the discharge of a firearm which occurs as described in Subsection 3.H.(1)-(4). Such an incident must be reported in accordance with the instructions contained in Subsection 11. Reportable shooting incidents are defined as:
(1) Any incident which involves the discharge of a firearm by a Service employee, either intentional or unintentional, which occurs under the following circumstances:
(a) While on duty (except for intentional discharges which occur during firearms training, practice, or qualification, and do not cause any injury to a person or animal, or damage to private, public, or government property); or,
(b) While off duty, and causes any injury to any person, or any damage to either private, public, or government property in violation of any law or ordinance, or causes an investigation by any law enforcement agency; or,
(c) At any time, regardless of the Service officer’s duty status, and regardless of the location or outcome of the incident, when a Service-issued or approved firearm is, or reasonably appears to be, discharged in an unsafe or reckless manner due to impairment caused by the consumption of alcohol or another drug.
(2) Any incident which involves the discharge of a Service-issued or approved firearm by any person other than a Service employee, and causes any injury to any person, or any damage to any private, public, or government property in violation of any law or ordinance, or causes an investigation by any law enforcement agency.
(3) Any incident which involves the discharge of a firearm as an act of assault against any Service employee, and the assault is, or reasonably appears to be, related to his or her Service employment.
(4) Any incident which involves the discharge of a firearm by a law enforcement officer other than a Service officer when the discharge occurs during multi-agency operations involving INS officers.
Agreed! There were many mistakes made that night!
Yes, a lot of people “failed to report”.
A reasonable conclusion is that nobody wanted to get their fellow agents in trouble for a bad shoot, so they all kept their mouths shut.
Another possibility is that every one of them independently forgot that they were obligated to report the shooting.
Another possibility is that once a supervisor showed up he took 1 collective report from the senior officer on the scene.
Any discharge of a firearm while on duty requires that an Agent make an oral report within one of our of the shooting.
I understand that if it turns into a criminal investigation, then you have a whole different matter, but the initial incident, in itself, was not considered a criminal matter at the time, or was it?
The government produced evidence showing that the defendants violated a number of Border Patrol policies in pursuing and firing upon Aldrete-Davila. The defendants characterize the trial as one in which the Border Patrol policies were substituted for the actual crimes charged and that by permitting evidence that established policies were violated and strict rules were broken the district court allowed the government to avoid the more difficult task of showing that the defendants had engaged in criminal conduct.The 5th Circuit vacated the portion of the convictions regarding "tampering with an official proceeding." Unfortunately, it is not the "meat" of the (other) convictions that are keeping Ramos and Compean in prison.The defendants were charged with tampering with an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) by failing to report the shooting to their supervisors. They argue on a number of grounds that such a failure to act constitutes neither tampering with evidence nor inhibiting an official proceeding, an argument that we conclude has merit.
In other words, the whole "was or was not policy violated" argument is really a red herring, and taken in a light most favorable to the defense (and there is no reason we shouldn't) is still a Pyrrhic victory for Ramos and Compean.
Folks were asking about the firearms policy and since I have a copy of the policy that was in force at the time, I posted the relevant parts so everyone could see the actual policy and not rely on what others posters claim it is.
In my opinion, deadly force was not authorized. I doubt I would have fired on the suspect.
I do hope they get a pardon, as I don’t believe they deserve 10 years in prison.
A crime was committed which required the intervention of the FBI. Since the investigation and the prosecution was FUBAR we don't know exactly who committed the crime. One of the problems to understanding this case is the culture of the Border Patrol and border law enforcement. The story that Ramos and Compean told is entirely plausible because it has happend so many times before on the border. Unfortunately, for Ramos and Compean choir practice caught up with them.
In order to "file" something you have to have something to put in the file such as a written report. The Border Patrol policy requires that an agent make an oral report within an hour to a supervisor who then "files" a written report.
How hard is it to acknowledge what the exact Border Patrol policy is on the discaharge of a firearm?
How hard is it to acknowledge that Ramos and Compean admitted to violating it?
Minor stuff. Irrelevant. They deserved not even a slap on the wrist. They were defending the USA border and for that the corrupt Johnny Sutton (aka Nifong) wants to use them for an example of what happened to those who oppose the invasion. I bet Johnny boy is happy how the Mexican military crosses over to our border.
Well, that is a somewhat accurate summary of some of the arguments I’ve seen over the past year or so: Ramos and Compean are Border Patrol agents who shot a Mexican, so they should get a pass. /sarc
What makes you think it's hard?
Oh, gosh. Maybe because I’ve never seen you do it?
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.