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 ...
Cute.
That appears to be the gist of it: “if cops go to prison for acting unlawfully, then it is wrong because cops don’t go to prison for acting unlawfully.”
AuntB, I think it is wrong to suggest Bob J is a DU person. His previous posts on other threads show that he thinks that that at one point, Ramos, after hearing so many shots fired, may have honestly believed that he was walking into a deadly firefight.
Bob J, I think your “bigots in a fig leaf” is inappropriate in this thread, and that is what angered AuntB. I do not believe that she is a bigot. I’ll bet there are a few real bigots on FR, but there are also some advocates of open borders here who continue to object to any reasonable efforts to control immigration.
I believe there are arguments for conviction, but I also have some doubts about what actually happened in Fabens. The jury came closer to being deadlocked than some here believe.
I hope both sides will step back and think before posting.
“Juarez testified he saw Compean shooting, let alone the fact that you conveniently left this out.”
Do read the entire post or just the first line and make up the rest? Here is my statement from the very post you reference.
“...only Juarez saw Compean shoot...”
What are you, a ‘tard? This is why people don’t even want to respond to you much less get into any kind of argument or discussion, it’s like talking to a five year old.
--
I don’t know exactly what happened. I wasn’t there, and I wasn’t in the courtroom watching all the evidence being put on
or aware of the evidence that was withheld intentionally. ;-)
Neither are we.. but Sutton is..
Justice is like making sausage,, when done right , it is a creation of beauty and goes down easily.
Maybe your gut is uneasy but for the wrong reason. ;-)
Besides Ramos and Compean there were only two other agents at the scene who were there early enough to “observe” or hear the shots, Juarez and Vasquez.
Neither reported (I’m not sure Juarez was required to), both were fired. So what’s your freaking point? That R&C are innocent because Vasquez and Juarez were trying to help R&C by not reporting a shooting and then maybe covering their own ass because they didn’t want to get drawn into this obviously bad shoot and cover up?
Both of them had their careers ended in shame and disrespect. They’ll never work in law enforcement again. Their families will suffer. And all because of Compean was a hot head who showed poor judgement then tried to lie his way out of trouble, dragging fellow agents into the mess (inlcuding Ramos) and not once expressing any remorse for it.
Where is your concern for these agents and their families? The fact is you have none because Juarez and Vasquez don’t rate on your hero meter...they didn’t shoot any illegal aliens.
Many of the people defending R&C have abyssamaly vacant knowledge of the constitution, or they are ignoring it and I don’t know which is more dangerous.
I’m going to throw this one out to them but I seriously doubt any will have the comprehension skills to understand it.
If one believes that illegal aliens have no rights under the constitution because those rights/law do not extend to non-citizens then it would follow that they are also not subject to those same laws or system of justice for the same reason.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t arrest them under the law then say they do not have rights granted to suspects under those same laws.
These people pick and choose which laws should apply to this individual or that, depending on the circumstances. And if others reading this thread don’t see the danger in that position there is nothing we can do for them.
I see. So your response to the fact that Compean and Ramos shot at and tried to kill an unarmed fleeing suspect is “everyone does it”?
That about sums up the position of many R&C defenders...
Giving any law enforcement official carte blanche to do as they will is a recipe for disaster. We live in a nation of laws- we can't allow LEO's to run riot over peoples' rights in order to secure the border.
Uhhh, FR is not “the conservative community”, it's just a place where some of them go to discuss the days news. Unfortunately, the posting rules here are quite broad and although Jim and the mods do what they can to keep the bigots and racists out, some are pretty good at disguising their beliefs.
Now, about AuntB. I never posted anything to her, she interjected herself into the conversation on her own without an invitation. I never specifically called anyone a bigot, but I do think positions held by some indicate as much, particularly on this issue, and I don't have a problem making that observation.
If the shoe fits, wear it, if it doesn't, than why do people think it does and believe comments are aimed directly at them? I made it very clear on several occasions that belief in an effective border and immigration policy is a widely held position here on FR.
Nothing bigoted about that.
But a belief that LEO’s should be allowed to shoot and kill unarmed fleeing suspects because they look like they MAY be an illegal, or because the LEO’s have a suspicion that they MAY be a Mexican transporting drugs, well ya, I think there is a cognitive problem there.
That later it was found out that OAD WAS and illegal and that he WAS transporting drugs is only incidental to the central issue of whether the BP agents were justified in opening fire on him because at the time of the shoot that wasn't known as a fact by Ramos or Compean, it wasn't even probable cause. But whether OAD was an illegal or an American citizen, whether or not he was transporting pot or just had a van full of contraband madonna statues for his mothers boutique has nothing to do with whether Ramos and Compean believed their safety or the safety of other agents was in danger that day.
You see, that's the central and only issue in play here. But R&C supporters want to ignore that and make it to all about OAD being a suspected illegal alien drug mule from Mexico and that is reason enough to absolve/excuse R&C from their illegal shoot, destruction of evidence, abuse of authority, obstruction of justice and perjury.
And that is a dangerous position, IMO, and one that I think springs from a basic bigoted attitude because the suspect in this incident was an illegal alien from Mexico. I think if the perp was some young white kid from the burbs trying to make a quick score and he was shot and killed by police without provocation, they would be screaming about police brutality.
But that's just my opinion and if the show don't fit, don't wear it.
“How exactly do you plan on carrying out this “excise”?”
I don’t plan on doing anything personally, but I would hope the bigots and racists who masquerade as conservatives would be publically called on their crap and shunned by the community.
They are not conservatives and only call themselves such because it helps excuse their unholy beliefs and provides them cover to operate on the fring. But they are not helping conservatism, the only hurt it.
Stop projecting. And I did not state you claimed that Compean was angry. Read post 253, I stated you supported that statement with the presumption ... I think he's working off of Compean's own testimony.
So prove that he got that from Compean's own testimony. You haven't.
The point I made and continue to make is that you changed your viewpoint of presumption in post 252.
I'm the guy who opined (note: not "presumed"--you are having difficulty with that word) that he either panicked, or went Rambo.
Opine what you want, this discussion was over your change of attitude with respect to presumption. And please post where I had any comment on your opining of Compean panicking or going Rambo, although I think your opinion on that stinks, but that is my opinion.
It's somewhat ironic that you feel you are entitled to your assumptions
Okay show me where I assume that the comments I identify are the gospel truth? What is the "gospel truth" are the times stamped on the communications tape. What is the "gospel truth" is that statements made by Juarez, Vasquez and Davila are directly contradictory. There are no assumptions there. What is the "gospel truth" is that Juarez and Vasquez both changed their versions of events numerous times. What is the "gospel truth" is that Yrigoyen testified that Compean told him that he caught Davila on the levee and tumbled down the levee. Exactly as Compean later testified. What is relevant is that Compean expressed this to Yrigoyen within minutes of the event happening on Feb 17 2005.
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.
What dream world are you in? This is what Ajnin posted.
Hey dumbass I work for the Border Patrol. I’ve been involvled in shootings, I know the policy backwards and forwards. Agents do not need to write a written report. Let’s put some money on it b*tch.
Any discharge of a firearm while on duty requires that an Agent make an oral report within one of our of the shooting.
As long as the incident is reported there is nothing in the policy that I'm aware of that requires a supervisor to interview all witnesses. However, any agent that witnesses a dishcarge of a service weapon is required to report it to a Supervisor.
Looks to me as if Ajnin is correct and you mischaracterize his statements. And to clear things up the whole "file" thing was started with this statement
“First, both of them knew that it was their responsibility to file an incident report and furnish their supervisor with it.”
"File" and "furnish", looks like something written is implied.
So you object to someone's comment that Compean was clowned by a dirtbag, and to someone else's comment that Compean was angry.
No it was in one statement which you supported. I was addressing your acceptance of presumption in the case of that statement.
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?"
I would agree with the statement that Compean made mistakes. He did not make an overt verbal report of the shooting, he testified that he was mistaken. And he picked up the shell casings, he also testified to that. Ramos testified that Compean appeared to be in shock. So make of those things what you will.
What is my argument in your words?
“AuntB, I think it is wrong to suggest Bob J is a DU person. “
I didn’t suggest that. I suggested it might be a more appropriate venue for an open border shill.
“And without those of us (the majority, btw) that you call a ‘cancer’, what exactly is the difference between you and the left? Other than you post on FR instead of DU?”
“I’ll bet there are a few real bigots on FR, but there are also some advocates of open borders here who continue to object to any reasonable efforts to control immigration.”
Maybe, but I don’t see them. What I see is anyone, and I mean anyone, who disagrees with the border control extremists on this site immediately being attacked as “open borders advocate”, “Johnny Sutton Lover”, DU’er, liberal, blah, blah, blah.
I’ll tell you this. These extremists who immediately attack and attempt to kill any rational discussion on this issue (and others) through personal attacks and character assassination of the most childish and inane manner are nothing but thugs and bullies trying to impress their will on others through intimidation.
If I were running the site, their ass would be out on the street in a New York minute. They muck up the site and make it an unpleasant experience for the reasonable and rationale participants who want nothing more than to discuss the days news and maybe learn a thing or two.
But that’s just me.
“I didn’t suggest that. I suggested it might be a more appropriate venue for an open border shill.”
This is like a comedic farce and only reinforces what I’ve been stating over and over on this thread. Many of the R&C supporters are so blinded by their “faith” and so jaded in their beliefs that anyone who deviates one inch from the anointed scripture is immediately branded an enemy who must be crushed or eliminated.
There can be no discussion, deviation is blasphemy.
It’s like a cult.
Do you have some sort of language difficulty? Jacquez was required to report it once he learned of the shooting. If you had read the testimony as you assert you have you would have discovered the following.
2 Q. What were those charges? 3 A. False statement, because I omitted the part of Compean 4 telling me about the shooting. 5 Q. Anything else? 6 A. Just failure to report. 5 Q. And you assumed, in any event, that Agent Richards would 6 have been told about it, right? 7 A. Yes, sir. 8 Q. Because, actually, every officer who was there who heard 9 the shooting should have reported it to Richards? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. And, in fact, Richards should have heard -- well, okay. It 12 wasn't just the person that fires the weapon. It wasn't only 13 that person that had the duty to report it, correct? 14 A. Correct. People that were there. 1 Q. On February 17, 2005, at that time, you didn't do anything 2 wrong in your opinion. Is that right? 3 A. Correct, sir. 4 Q. Whatever you may have done wrong that you needed immunity 5 for came after that date. Is that right? 6 A. Correct. 7 Q. And, as I understand it, what you did wrong is, you gave a 8 statement in which you did not say that Mr. Compean -- or Agent 9 Compean had told you he shot at somebody. Is that right? 10 A. Correct. 11 Q. Then you corrected that later by giving a statement in 12 which you did say that, correct? 13 A. Correct. 14 Q. Okay. The first statement that you gave after you got your 15 immunity agreement was in April of 2005. Is that right? 16 A. I believe so. 17 Q. Okay. Your lawyer was present when you gave that 18 statement? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. And, in that statement, you did say that Agent Vasquez had 21 told you about the shooting didn't you? 22 A. Yes. 23 Q. And -- you reported everything that Agent Vasquez had told 24 about the shooting on February 17th, correct? 25 A. Correct. David A. Perez, CSR, RPR Juarez - Cross by Mr. Antcliff 96 1 Q. Okay. The second statement that you gave was on September 2 27, 2005. Would that be right? 3 A. I believe so. 4 Q. And present when you gave that statement were Assistant 5 United States Attorneys Debra Kanof and Jose Luis Gonzalez and 6 Agent Sanchez. Is that right? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And they told you that your story did not make sense and 9 you had better come clean in order to keep your immunity, 10 right? 11 A. For in -- yes, for me to tell the truth. 12 Q. That worried you, didn't it? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Okay. You were aware that you were exposing yourself to 15 jail time if you did not honor the terms of the immunity 16 agreement that you had made, right? 17 A. Yes. 18 Q. And it required you to tell the truth? 19 A. Yes. 20 Q. Would you agree with me that September 27th, if that's 21 date, is about six months after February 17th when this 22 incident occurred? 23 A. Yes. 24 Q. And some of the things that you remembered in that second 25 statement you had not put in the first one, correct? David A. Perez, CSR, RPR Juarez - Cross by Mr. Antcliff 97 1 A. Correct. 2 Q. Okay. Border Patrol policy on the discharge of a firearm 3 requires not only the person discharging the firearm to tell, 4 orally report it to a superior, but anybody else who knows 5 about it to report it to a superior. Is that right? 6 A. I believe so, yes, sir. 7 Q. Failure to report that is a violation of Border Patrol 8 policy, right? 9 A. Yes, sir. 10 Q. It carries a potential penalty of maybe a reprimand or a 11 suspension, right? 12 A. Yes.
The transcript erroneously labels some of the pages as Juarez testimony, but it is Jacquez testimony. The point is that he was required by policy to report the shooting within one hour of the conversation involving Compean mentioning the shooting. Mendoza was also mentioned as possibly being aware of the shooting, but that assertion is not verified by his testimony.
Where is your concern for these agents and their families? The fact is you have none because Juarez and Vasquez don’t rate on your hero meter...they didn’t shoot any illegal aliens.
The fact is that you have anal-ocular inversion. You don't know what I do or don't have concern about apart from the particulars of this case. I have not even spoken about the families of Ramos and Compean, so stuff your assumptions where the "sun don't shine". And to reexpress my sentiments to you, my wife was an illegal alien, she is now legal. I take your comments as offensive and indicative of coming from a perfect anal orifice.
Excellent post #291. ONLY people who are for the illegals would argue under that description could a border patrol agent be guilty of anything.
I hate that DU insult. That's what the amnesty advocates call me when I disagree with McCain on immigration. There are trolls on both sides, but I don't consider you a troll.
The trouble is, when you say "fig leaf bigots," I assume you are talking about only a very small number of FReepers. I hope the use of "you" in the following post to AuntB was an accident:
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.
I expect crude comments from some, but I have come to expect better of you. IMO, some of your posts in this thread are not up to your usual standards.
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.