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 ...
LOL. I fully understand. But you’re trying to change what you said, now.
See #559
The "failure to report" issue was being used as a talking-point by people who are deliberately trying to conceal the fact that Ramos and Compean violated policy and admit to it. Let me walk you through this:
1. Ramos and Compean violated policy.To turn around and claim that there is no policy requirement to file a written report, while ignoring that there is a policy requirement to make a report is nonsense. It is a talking-point.
2. They admit to violating policy.
Jeepers, you guys are like dogs returning to their own vomit.
Don't flatter yourself. You understand nothing. I said that Ramos and Compean were never charged with failure to report.
It not a strawman, by the simple fact that Ramos and Compean are not in prison because of Sutton's testimony to Congress.
Remember the mental vapor-lock I induced in the other guy when I accepted his central premise? Let's accept yours, now. Let's assume that Sutton perjured himself before Congress. Are Ramos and Compean still in prison? If so, why?
I understand that you like to argue and fling around personal insults and I know the difference between not being found guilty and being found not guilty. ;-)
I said that Ramos and Compean were never charged with failure to report.
And the guy that was convicted of attempted murder was never charged with stabbing his victim. I get it.
But that isn't what you said (never charged with failure to report). You said it was just a "talking point" (see 559). Big difference.
NO. It's NOT! They were convicted for this act and sentenced to 1-2 years.
Yes, the CA5 vacated that part of their sentence but it does not void the fact that Sutton&Co engaged in malicious prosecution.
Oh, great. You pinged another English expert with zero legal knowledge. That “not found guilty” (therefore “not guilty”) versus “found not guilty” (therefore “not guilty”) diversion was funny for a short while.
So the 5th Circuit? Is it guilty of subornation of perjury because it repeats Sutton's "lies" in its own opinion?Like I said--your silly strawman.
I’ll take “What Will Bush NOT Do Before Leaving Office?” for $1,000, Alex.
What happened to Laz? I enjoyed his humor.
As as I stated above, I even accepted the central premise (that there is no requirement to write a report just to move the argument forward). You're ignoring what I did because you're not smart enough to figure it out.
Actually, now that I think about it—Sutton’s testimony to Congress is the strawman. You’re not that smart at all. Wow. You knocked yourself down a few pegs with that one.
Joe, I have asked you and asked you and ASKED you why you persist in characterizing the ass as the back.
I can tell torso from groin. Why cannot you or Johnny Sutton?
>>The testimony discloses that Aldrete-Davila was unarmed and fleeing.<<
Since Aldrete-Davila was not apprehended, and therefore not subjected to an official LEO search, whose testimony alleges that he was unarmed?
Me, it’s ‘cause I’d far rather see a drug smuggler get shot than the neighbor’s cocker spaniel, much as I hate that damn dog.
I introduced the policy for no other reason to demonstrate that you are intellectually dishonest. This issue about the policy is about you and your unwillingness to admit when you are obviously wrong.
No, you got your panties in a wad because I came down hard on a drive-by who tried to insinuate that Ramos and Compean violated no policy at all. And you didn’t have the intellectual honesty to admit that they violated policy until I made you look like an idiot.
BobJ: 1RB, how many years are Ramos and Compean serving in prison because they failed to report the shooting?I assume you will now be smarter than to answer "Zero." But, maybe not.
Your prior answer: Exactly zero. The "failure to report" issue is a talking-point. It is a deliberate (and intellectually fraudulent) attempt to disguise actual criminal behavior.
Sutton's testimony was filled with lies. It is now in the Senate record which should disqualify him from a Federal judgeship--thank goodness.
ROFL!
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.