Ahhh... there you go again. Feel the love! I'll match my degrees to yours, anyday. (Do they give degrees to for running pizza joints and dressing up like Pinocchio? If so, you got me on that type of "education.")
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 ...
Maybe I should be more like you. Argue from a position of complete ignorance. Repeat the same myths over and over again, fail to back up fairy tales with any sources, etc. Yeah, you're real intelligent Mr. MS-13.
I remember the statement but I don't remember who said it, or when.
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?
Easy. Just ignore the facts and become a Sutton mouthpiece.
Johnny Sutton? Is that you?
I still ain't buying the crap line dreamed up by the illegal drug smuggler and his lawyer...
You know that part where two athletes are trash-talking each other, and one points at the scoreboard? This is one of those times.
This case has moved past Sutton and his office. I understand that the emotional (and easier) reaction is to claim "malicious prosecution," "perjury," "conspiracy," "mopery with intent," or whatnot . . . but the fact of the matter is that Sutton (and his office), to this point, have been vindicated by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
The only people that are looking like fools are the ones who tried to turn this case into a political football and lost.
1rudeboy: Exactly zero. The "failure to report" issue is a talking-point. It is a deliberate (and intellectually fraudulent) attempt to disguise actual criminal behavior.
Perhaps you geniuses missed counts 8, 9, and 10? Compean got 24 months, Ramos 12 months.
What's a couple years of their life to you, huh? It seems your view is they're just a couple of stupid Mexicans that you can use to support your cause.
Note that I specifically identify the category. Ramos and Compean were not "convicted of failure to report" because there is (and was) no such charge. You are blowing smoke.
Ahhh... there you go again. Feel the love! I'll match my degrees to yours, anyday. (Do they give degrees to for running pizza joints and dressing up like Pinocchio? If so, you got me on that type of "education.")
No they haven't. The 5th Circuit chose to accept what was presented at trial. Sutton vindicated? That little twirp's lies have been recorded for all time in history. He can kiss goodbye his dreams of getting appointed to the federal bench.
They keep returning to the written/oral report issue. Nothing can stop them.
You call it a "talking point" but that whole rigamorole set the stage to paint the agents as "out to shoot Mexicans." Had those charges not been allowed to have been brought, this trial would have come out much differently, IMO.
COUNT EIGHT
[18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) - Tampering with an Official Proceeding]
On or about the February 17, 2005, in the Western District of Texas, defendants IGNACIO RAMOS and JOSE ALONSO COMPEAN,
did knowingly corruptly obstruct, influence and impede, and attempt to obstruct, influence and impede an official proceeding, to wit; the Defendants IGNACIO RAMOS and JOSE ALONSO COMPEAN, by failing to report to appropriate authorities the discharging of a firearm, which obstructed and impeded a contemporaneous investigation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the shooting for use in an official proceeding, including an official inquiry by the appropriate authorities, for consideration by a federal grand jury and for consideration by a trial jury, among other proceedings, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512 (c)(2).
COUNT NINE
[18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) - Tampering with an Official Proceeding]
On or about the February 17, 2005, in the Western District of Texas, defendants IGNACIO RAMOS,
did knowingly, corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate and conceal a record, document and object and did corruptly attempt to alter destroy, mutilate and conceal a record, document and object with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; to wit: the defendant IGNACIO RAMOS, having an affirmative duty, pursuant to U.S. Border Patrol rules and regulations, to report the discharge of any firearm provided to him for his use in the capacity of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, failed to report that he discharged his Beretta 40 caliber firearm when he shot at O.A.D., which firearm had been provided to him by the U.S. Border Patrol for his official use, and which failure to report impeded the generation of a written report and document, preventing said report and document from being available in an official proceeding in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512 (c)(1).
COUNT TEN
[18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) - Tampering with an Official Proceeding]
On or about the February 17, 2005, in the Western District of Texas, defendants JOSE ALONZO COMPEAN,
did knowingly, corruptly alter, destroy, mutilate and conceal a record, document and object and did corruptly attempt to alter destroy, mutilate and conceal a record, document and object with the intent to impair the object's integrity and availability for use in an official proceeding; to wit: the defendant JOSE ALONZO COMPEAN, having an affirmative duty, pursuant to U.S. Border Patrol rules and regulations, to report the discharge of any firearm provided to him for his use in the capacity of a U.S. Border Patrol Agent, failed to report that he discharged his Beretta 40 caliber firearm when he shot at O.A.D., which firearm had been provided to him by the U.S. Border Patrol for his official use, and which failure to report impeded the generation of a written report and document, preventing said report and document from being available in an official proceeding in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512 (c)(1).
This is serious stuff. Three federal judges (actually, four) got it wrong, while you, a member of an internet bulletin board, have it correct.
The 5th Circuit didn’t repeat Sutton’s lies. I’m speaking of his testimony to Congress that was filled with ‘mistruths’ as you might like to call them.
Hey idiot... did ya notice the tampering charge(s) included such allegations as picking up brass? C'mon, I've been around this circle umpteen times.
If you kill someone, do you get convicted of murder, or using a knife?
You said they were not convicted of "failure to report." I posted the charges for which they were convicted for exactly that alleged act.
Compean was also convicted on Count 7 which included "picking up brass," as you call it. No such charge was ever brought against Ramos.
You'd better be, because Ramos and Compean were not convicted based on Sutton's testimony to Congress. Which places you in the difficult position of arguing that the 5th Circuit did not repeat Sutton's lies because it ignored them.
Here’s the thing: you don’t understand what the word “charge” means, in a legal sense. Ramos and Compean were not “charged” with failure to report, they were “charged” with tampering—with evidence of failure to report supporting the “charge.”
"Exactly zero. The "failure to report" issue is a talking-point. It is a deliberate (and intellectually fraudulent) attempt to disguise actual criminal behavior."
Under that logic, stabbing someone would just be a "talking point" even if they were convicted of attempted murder and were serving a life sentence.
Well, DUH!!!!
Which places you in the difficult position of arguing that the 5th Circuit did not repeat Sutton's lies because it ignored them.
Why would I try to argue your silly strawman. That's your convoluted thought, not mine.
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.