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 ...
One more thing. Whenever one of these “bigots in a fig leaf” represent themselves and their positions as conservative and use it as a facade to legitimize their unholy beliefs, my skin crawls. It’s like nails on a chalkboard.
The point is if that is what happens to me I have to assume that there may be hundreds or thousands of others who feel the same way. The problem is it makes all those others shrink away from getting involved or even calling themselves conservative...maybe voting that way.
True conservatives need to call these people out on their BS every time we see it or we risk having the entire movement trivialized and crippled. Years ago I thought it possible to reason with them, maybe they were just misinformed or misguided. But many of them are jaded to the core and beyond any rational discussion. Their dead set position on this incident is a good example, but there are others as well.
Don't make the mistake of believing you represent everyone who supports sane and reasonable immigration laws and border enforcement. Most of the people on FR support these issues but also see the inconsistency in supporting LEO’s who abused their authority, lie and tried to cover up their misdeeds.
The extreme border security crowd want to see Ramos and Compean pardoned not because they want to see them free and home with their children, they want the actions they took that afternoon given a stamp of approval. In other words, they would allow the most extreme abuse of authority and of civilian rights by their governments armed agents as long as it pushes their agenda a few yards down the field.
That isn't conservatism, it's support for police state thuggery and murder. This time you may accept and absolve it because it isn't your ox getting gored. But that's the problem with allowing the government that kind of ability...next time it may be you, or a relative or friend that is getting chased down and shot.
There can be no equivocation on this point by true conservatives. Defense may go lax because this time it was only an illegal alien drug mule, but when we vigorously defend the basic civilian rights of the least of us, we are protecting them for all of us.
BTW - The attempts by those on the other side of this issue to brand opponents as liberals, DU’ers, Sutton lovers, etc., is despicable and pathetic. It only demonstrates the weakness of your arguments and how extreme you are in your beliefs. It makes me even more resolved in my own belief that you must b excised from the conservative community.
Amen, FRiend!
Juarez testified that Compean took a swing at A-D with his shotgun and missed, then fell to the ground dropping his shotgun. In any case, A-D made it back over the border.
So yes, he got "clowned by a dirtbag." No presumption here at all.
Yes they do and the Circuit Court of Appeals did review the case and issued a written opinion addressing the facts and the law.
They almost never give reasons when its as second appeal after the first appeal was rejected.
This is true for motions to reconsider.
My major concern was the prosecution withheld information that was beneficial to the defendants under Brady v. Maryland and on that basis alone, would have ordered a new trial.
Then what is your purpose on these threads? Showing that someone obviously did not do what they testified to is not a picky detail.
I think the people that have been arguing with you on this thread have been kicking your butt.
And hollywood loves Michael Moore, so what?
Take remedial reading....or observes
Juarez testified he saw Compean shooting, let alone the fact that you conveniently left this out.
or within one hour of the time the employee becomes aware of the incident.
Vasquez became aware of the shooting at C.C. Bills gate if not when he heard the shots upon his arrival at the ditch.
Your tap dance won't work. Juarez testimony does not fit your presumption here ....I think he's working off of Compean's own testimony.
The point I'm making is there is nothing in Compean's testimony where you can draw the conclusion that he was mad. A conclusion that can be drawn from Compean's testimony is that he was scared.
What I find most disturbing is that someone usually appears on these threads and uses the U.S. Constitution as the facade. Specifically, "Aldrete-Davila's rights were not violated because he is not a U.S. citizen." Do these people need a serious injection of Scalia, or what?
Think about it abstractly for a second: alleged criminal wrong-doing (by anyone) should get a pass if the alleged victim is later determined to be constitutionally ineligible.
Just what is the basis for all criminal prosecutions, then? If I get drunk (for the umpteenth) time and get into an accident (for the umpteenth time), can I argue "no harm, no foul" because the guy being zipped into a body bag is a non-citizen (illegal or not) from Guatemala?
Can't you read? I intentionally placed your statement in my post. Again this is what you stated and is a presumption....I think he's working off of Compean's own testimony.
Do you see Juarez in that statement?
Again my point is that you have no justification to attribute anger to Compean based upon any of his testimony.
Can’t you comprehend? I think Compean’s own testimony proves he was clowned by a dirtbag. You disagree, and frankly I don’t care that your delicate sensibilities have been violated.
And I don't care what you think, it is what you can prove which would move your statement from presumption to a supported statement. Your original statement still remains a presumption. If you care to move it out, find and post from Compean's testimony where he indicates his anger. Until that moment, your presumption is a presumption and your post 252 indicates a change in posture as I stated.
What a bunch of B.S.
Abuse of authority is exactly why folks are outraged -- abuse by Sutton, Kanof, and the DOJ thugs.
You and your buddy DC Patriot calling everyone bigots does nothing to advance your cause.
You are kicking their ass big time, LOL! The keyboard commandos watch CSI and they think their opinons trump actual facts.
“You and your buddy DC Patriot calling everyone bigots does nothing to advance your cause. “
It’s the best argument Sutton’s true believers can muster.
I'm the guy who opined (note: not "presumed"--you are having difficulty with that word) that he either panicked, or went Rambo.
It's somewhat ironic that you feel you are entitled to your assumptions (e.g., the biggest one, the assumption that the comments you identify in the trial transcript are to be treated as the gospel truth by nature of them being uttered in the first place), yet are quick to complain about any assumption someone else might make.
Particularly mystifying is the reaction to comments about what Compean himself admits. This is where Ajnin led with his chin: he (emotionally) assures us that there is no policy to "file" a report, whereas Compean admits under oath that he violated the policy to "make" a report. Did you notice how quickly the subject was dropped when someone else posted the text of the policy? Did you notice that all we are doing is parsing words?
So you object to someone's comment that Compean was clowned by a dirtbag, and to someone else's comment that Compean was angry. Would you agree with the characterization that Compean's performance "was less than optimal for a law enforcement officer," and there's evidence that makes it permissible to infer that he "was not thinking clearly?"
That's what is funny about your argument: if you win it you still lose.
This should be good. How exactly do you plan on carrying out this "excise"?
“Most people would say that cops shouldn’t mistakenly shoot anyone ... and when they do, they shouldn’t lie about it, and try to cover up what they did. “
...and yet they do exactly that, shooting innocent people, all the time and never get punished for it. They don’t even lose their jobs. Only when they mistakenly shoot criminals do they go to prison. If you find nothing wrong with that then there isn’t any point in discussing this with you further.
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.