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 ...
Prejudicial to whom and just how does this serve justice and our national security?
I have more than once asked them on these immigration threads to pretend The O'Reilly Factor was looking over their shoulder..for that very reason.
Please state just who corroborated what and in which context or this is just dribble.
Oh please. It's already been appealed and it still hasn't been overturned. Doesn't that even register with you?
Please elaborate on just what policy of the United States Ramon and Compean were violating when they interdicted this convicted drug smuggler while violating out federal statutes?
Careful. We have some ostensible language "hawks" on this thread. Do you mean "policy," or "law?"
As a matter of fact, it registers just fine. That's exactly what I find most frightening about all of this.
Frightening is not the work I would use.
All professionals are..and should be... held to a higher standard. LEOs included. Their conviction...even on appeal serves as a stark reminder of what happens when LEOs go bad. And because this has international implications, there could be no ambiguity in the sentence.
How about justice and sanity?
Let's just leave it here: there's a reason they are called "law enforcement officers," and not "policy, justice, and sanity enforcement officers."
Hey bone head, have you ever thought a drug dealer might be shooting at you? How long would you wait to be sure?
You're wrong. I would absolutely love a cogent response if you have one.
By way of explaining corroborating evidence (not to be confused with exculpatory or prejudicial evidence), think of it this way:
lying, scumbag, dirtball, drug-runner claims he was shot,It's the way our criminal justice system works.
LEO admits to shooting at lying, scumbag, dirtball drug-runner, so
it is permissible for a jury to infer that the LEO shot the lying, scumbag, dirtball drug-runner.
What does picking up fifteen spent shells, and filing phony reports have to do with what you claim is a ‘good shoot’?
I'm arguing that you changed your viewpoint about presumption in post 252. You had presumed that someone used Compean's testimony to determine anger among other things. In the course of attempting to deny such a change of viewpoint you introduced Ajnin and the policy into the discussion. A simple, "Yeah, I changed my viewpoint about presumption", from you would have ended the discussion. Why was I even interested in your change of viewpoint? Well, I find that the statement, "I stopped reading after “presume.”" is dismissive and deserves criticism.
Where does Ajnin admit conflating things?
My viewpoint hasn't changed. You simply feel that it has. As far as my "dismissive" response? You think it "deserves criticism?" Take a look at the comment to which I was responding. To be generous, it was "uninspired." It was so insipid I can't even recall what it was about, other than that it was some sort of gawdawful imitation of a slippery-slope/hasty generalization.
Who picked up fifteen spent shells? And who filed what phony reports?
They are an extension of my rules regarding my home, which is supported by the Castle Doctrine of several states, including my own.
If you (generic!) knock at my door and ask to come in, you will probably do it, and probably leave happy. The alternative is that it will be inconvenient for me to let you in, and I will ask you to leave, and you may go away unhappy, but unharmed.
Enter my home by force or stealth, and you will be shot. No ifs, ands, buts, or excuses. I will shoot you, and the law will be on my side.
Now substitute "country" for "home", and you will-- perhaps-- understand my position, even if you continue to disagree with it.
The US is being invaded. Significant portions of this country have been overrun. Glenn Beck has documented an American city where local law enforcement is powerless against the gangs, MS-13 etc., who among other atrocities kidnap Americans (mostly of Mexican ancestry-- this is not a race issue) for ransom or worse.
Here in Grand Rapids, Michigan, there are areas which have been claimed by MS-13 (here they go by "Mob13" or "Sur13" and are kept in dubious check by the Mexican-American "Latin Kings"). I have to pass by, and occasionally through, these areas, and given 24 hours, could document it photographically (if you can hold out until the weekend, I'd appreciate it; or you could just take my word for it).
We have to stop the invasion. These people cannot be permitted to gain reinforcements and potential recruits. If we can stop it before it turns into a shooting war in our streets-- I do not exaggerate-- we must.
Perhaps I'm the only one who sees it coming. I am fairly sure that, if the poo hits the prop, there are others who will sit up in surprise, and then stand up in determination. I hope official policy gets some sort of adjustment to plug the holes and begins to drain these invaders back home before things get too far out of hand.
I'm not going back to look. I remember telling him that the point he was making about the written policy is moot (because Ramos and Compean admit to violating policy regardless), and I remember him arguing that it is not moot because [something].
I left it at that. If he thinks I am mischaracterizing what he's stated on this thread, then he has to be the one to elaborate.
What are the exact words in the Border Patrol’s written policy regarding the on duty discharge of a service weapon by an agent?
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.