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 ...
Well, I never been asked about it.
From what I remember they didn’t report it. While in a court of law it may be an indication of guilt, in the Border Patrol it isn’t.
The fact of the matter remains, Ramos and Compean violated policy, and admitted to it in court.
It could be an indication of guilt in a court of law, or it could not. In this case, the point is moot.
And your statement is precisely the reason to go over the testimony. Do you know how many seconds Ramos had to decide whether to shoot or not? Ramos was eating lunch when the call came in about the van. Was he thinking about shooting someone as he dined? Did Compean think that no one would hear his shots when he fired? Do you know how to determine whether Vasquez lied or not? Davila escaped to Mexico, so it is not known absolutely or not whether he had a gun or performed actions considered to be threatening. The jurors evidently believed Davila, that is a travesty when you can go over the testimony and with certitude demonstrate that Davila lied continuously. That is the reason that they should not have been found guilty. Now if that can not be rectified they must be pardoned.
I didn’t state there is no written policy. I stated that agents do not have to make a written report. The Border Patrol’s WRITTEN POLICY states that an agent has to make an oral report to a supervisor within one hour of weapon discharge.
Right. We get that—so unless you are arguing otherwise, your comment is completely IRRELEVANT.
No it’s not moot, because the turmoil involved in this case is an ongoing problem.
Well, I think that this one meets the criteria.
(1) When the officer reasonably believes that the person at whom the firearm is to be discharged possesses the means, the intent, and the opportunity of causing death or grievous bodily harm upon the officer or another person;
If I see someone pointing a gun at me, or think I see someone pointing a gun at me when that person is evading and I have not positively determined that the person is unarmed, I would suggest that is reasonable belief. Davila was not patted down. Ramos came over the levee and saw Compean in a kneeling position. This was after he heard shots while he crossed the ditch. He then saw Davila reach back with something in his hand. I find that it is reasonable to fire, especially when we are talking about a second or two following an all out sprint across a ditch, a levee and few feet of the vega.
My comment is relevent because you were wrong and I had to correct you.
LOL!, I did not say there isn't a written policy. In fact it states an oral report has to be made which we both agree they violated.
The fact that the person is running away from you generally negates the use of deadly force!
I know what both Agents claimed, but unfortunately, both also changed their stories several times.
Ramos had the opportunity to articulate why he fired and the jury came to the same conclusion as I did.
So, because my job is to defend the border, I should be exempt from the law while performing my duties?
At this point I’ll settle for telling them “you do what you have to do to keep out the invaders. We have your back.”
In my book, Ramos and Compean = the Haditha Marines. Sucks they didn’t get the same justice. Perhaps after CW2.
The law should allow you to defend the border. Period.
(shoot illegal crossers.)
If you don’t know the difference, I can’t help you.
Compean needs a pardon, reinstatement, promotion, and his actions codified as official policy.
And, by God’s grace:
Roe v. Wade
Kelo
Apply that same standard to every single case where people are found guilty after trials and we'd have to pardon thousands of people every year.
I'm done arguing about this case. As far as I'm concerned, it's over.
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.