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 ...
I don't know what the jury was swayed by. According to the transcripts, in my opinion, there is reasonable doubt that a crime was committed by the agents and they should have been acquitted.
Testimony from other law enforcement officers that claim the two border agents picked up empty shell casings to alter the scene may have also been detrimental to their case.
The picking up of the casings was most certainly detrimental to their case. Obviously, to the jury it indicated guilt, which they interpreted to mean the agents knew they shot an unarmed man. However, shooting on duty, not reporting it and picking up casings had been common practice in the Border Patrol which makes their story plausible.
Actaully, I was talking about our fellow Freepers that like to make us continually debunk the same myths over and over again. You both are doing an outstanding job of pointing out the facts. Much better than I could do. I guess the silver lining here is that lurkers see these arguments and side with Ramos and Compean.
Most people who look at the details think that the case stinks all around.
I wonder what ever came of the Senate hearings?
Sutton should have been prosecuted for perjury in that one.
Assume that Border Patrol policy did not require an agent to file a written report that he had discharged his weapon. (I simply say "assume" because I don't have a copy of the regulations on my desk, and even if I did, I have no way of knowing whether the regulations have changed since the shooting). In other words, I am willing to stipulate that there is no requirement to file a written report just so you can move your argument forward.
The issue (that Ramos and Compean did not file a written report because it was not required that they do so) is a talking-point. It is a meme. It is a red herring. It is irrelevant. Its sole* purpose is to create the impression that Ramos and Compean did nothing wrong when they failed to report the shooting. But the fact of the matter is that Ramos and Compean did do something wrong when they failed to report the shooting. They violated Border Patrol policy, and they admit it. Ramos was a firearms instructor, for cripe's sakes. He knew exactly what he was doing.
What you fail to comprehend is that you are so fixated on proving I was "wrong" (not parsing the difference between "filing" a report and "making" one, maybe) that you've completely lost sight of the objective (which I would guess is absolving Ramos and Compean of guilt for the crimes they actually committed).
I'm honored by the attention, and you may have won the Internet. The Web is now safe from anyone who equates filing a report with making one. In that regard, I'm tempted to admit I was wrong just to make you shut up.
Seriously, what do you think you've accomplished? Ramos and Compean are in prison for driving while intoxicated, and you're shouting "but they signaled their lane changes!" It would be funny if it wasn't sad.
_____
*If people think that the person who arrived on this thread to inform us that Ramos and Compean couldn't violate a policy that does not exist did so out of the goodness of his own heart, and not to leave the impression that Ramos and Compean didn't violate any policy at all--I have a bridge to sell you.
Your such a tool Andrew. When are you going to get tired of people thumping you on the head? It’s like playing Whack-a-Mole with an 8 year old.
” Read the testimony I’ve posted. You’ll find no such admission from Compean.”
Well, as I’ve said if Compean says it didn’t happen then it must not have happened and everyone else is lying. (/sarcasm)
“Well that would mean that Compean picked up all of the shells from the TOP of the levee in full view of Yrigoyen, Mendez, Juarez, Vasquez, Jacquez, Mendoza, and Richards.”
No. If you re-read my post is says “from around the top of the levee”. Juarez testified that as he saw Compean shoot he was a few steps down the south side of the levee and that he could only see him from he waist up. To me this means probably 2-3 steps and a 2-3 feet vertical drop. Compean testified the OAD ran away not on a straight line, but at a 45 degree angle TO THE LEFT. That means not only was Comp partially down the side but he was turnd as well at a 45 degree angle from thwe top edge of the levee as he shot. .40 Berettas eject their shell casings rightward up to 10 feet away either sideways or toward the back and this means the majority of them would have been ejected down the side of the levee where Compean could have picked them out of site from the others on the other side of the ditch Compean AND RAmos would have been completely out of sight on the SIDE of the south levee where the casings were retrieved.
Of course, the casings come out somewhat randomnly meaning a few would have been ejected to the right, to the right-rear and some to the rear-right with a few of them reaching the top of levee. These were the casings Compean could not pick as he would have been seen by others. So he left them and then asked another agent (who was fired) to do so for him after everyone else left the scene.
This scenario is completely consistent with ALL the other testimony and suggests Compean and probably Ramos were lying about mostly everything else.
I must say I love playing whack-a-mole with the logic and reading challenged.
Only if they are too lazy to make the effort to read.
“Your assertion that they shot an unarmed man was not proven in court. Unless of course you believe the drug smuggler’s testimony.”
As a matter of fact I, as the jury, rejected most if not all of OAD’s testimony. I came to the conclusion the shoot was bad and the R&C were lying based on their own unbelievable stories, their attempted cover up and the testimony of fellow agents whose statements directly contradicted what they said.
This has been said over and over and you keep with the idiotic “you believe the drug dealer” bullshit.
Go soak your head bungwipe, I’m tired of your lies and distortions.
“Wrong. MS-13 is an El Salvadorian gang. It was brought to Los Angeles by immigrants from El Salvador. I wouldn’t call that “home grown.”
Are you stating that ALL MS-13 members are Salvadoran? It may have been brought here by Salvadorans but it has been co-opted by every petty hispanic street gang thug in the city.
BTW - There are many X-13 gangs. I lived in Redondo and there they called themsleves “R-13”. The prefix generally notes an ethnic or geographical designation but they are all “13” gangs.
Since you profess to know so much about hispanic gangs, tell us, what does the “13” signify?
I’ll give you time to run your Google search because I’m certain you don’t know anything except what you read in the LA Times.
I believe you mentioned previously you had worked for the Border patrol. If you represent the average intelligence, cognitive and moral aptitude, the incompetence and unprofessionalism of Compean that day out at Fabens becomes believable.
1RB, how many years are Ramos and Compean serving in prison because they failed to report the shooting?
With Sutton's perjury, his lying prosecutors, the incompetent investigator, the smear attacks on Ramos and Compean, how can one come to the conclusion that this was anything other than an unethical and malicious prosecution?
“Didn’t an attorney from Sutton’s office tell the 5th Circut court that had Ramos and Compean reported the shooting, they would have not been prosecuted?”
He said “might have not”. What he was referring to is that if R&C had not attempted a cover up and instead come clean about the shooting up front with their supervisors, they wouldn’t have looked so guilty and might have gotten off with it just being bad judgement and not gone to jail.
But they certainly would have lost their jobs and never worked in law enforecement again.
But thanks again for mistating what someone said. If you all didn’t have diversion, misstating, misrepresenting, illogic, ignorance and your pure glee that an illegal alien got shot you’d have, well, just what you have now...nothing.
The "failure to report" issue is a talking-point. It is a deliberate (and intellectually fraudulent) attempt to disguise actual criminal behavior.
I think that your problem isn't that you "came to" the conclusion by weighing the evidence, but rather that you "came to" the evidence with your conclusion in hand.
I look at how the really left wing moonbats are so jaded about some topics that they are incapable, and I mean absolutely incapable, of rational thought or analysis, then I see what happening here and I’m reminded of the phrase “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.
Our right wing crazies can challenge the left wing crazies anyday.
I look at how the really left wing moonbats are so jaded about some topics that they are incapable, and I mean absolutely incapable, of rational thought or analysis, then I see what happening here and I’m reminded of the phrase “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.
Our right wing crazies can challenge the left wing crazies anyday.
Off to a meeting, I’ll be back for some more “Whack-an-Andy” later.
Yeah. "Home grown." LOL.
If you want to have a discussion about the meaning of the "13," cut the condescending attitude. If not, STFU.
It’s hard not to be condescending to a 30+ year old still working toward their GED.
And no, I don’t want to have a discussion about “13”. If however you’d like to talk about “24”, I’m all game.
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.