You are well equipped for that.
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 ...
Total BS, Bob. I've stated my position. You ignoring it and replacing it with your warped perverted thoughts is totally dishonest.
Anyone else would see this as an aggressive prosecution, something they get paid to do. I'm a taxpayer and I want to see my federal employees doing their jobs and doing them to the best of their abilities.
Well, then you and I disagree. I want the evidence presented to a jury, not second guessed by judges and prosecutors. I want prosecutors to honestly present the evidence, not to build bogus stories about events, witnesses, or defendants. I want prosecutors to be probited from lying in their opening and closing statements and to be punished for suborning perjury. I don't think this was an "aggressive" prosecution. I think it was injustice on parade.
blah, blah, blah... It's absurd and pathetic.
Pretty much sums up your post. You still haven't answered the question (third time, now):
When you call others here "bigots," exactly what are you accusing them of being biggoted about?
ozzymandus had not posted previously on this thread, so it can’t be any of the posts that you were referring to earlier. I’d still like to see what these “several” posts you referred to actually said.
FWIW, I don’t agree with ozzymandus’s post, given prior court rulings on the subject.
You mischaracterize the discussion. I entered the fray because of your dismissive "I stopped reading after presume" comment. I then pointed out that you had no problem with presumption in an example.
In the course of the argument, I mentioned your ludicrous statement about LEO's in post 381. In Post 385 you tried to push the argument of constitutionality off on me as my argument. I refused to let you do so in post 387. So your delusional assertion of my howling for hours about the Constitution not applying to illegal aliens is either a lie or a delusion promoted by you. Take your pick or retract your mistaken statement.
Here is post 381
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. ---- 1rudeboy
Not just feeling that way, I have given evidence of your acceptance of presumption. You presumed that someone used Compean's testimony to determine that Compean was angry among other things. You have yet to show that testimony.
The comment to which you responded was also responding to an "uninspired" comment by you about LEOs determining in advance a person's rights.
My post 387
Well, I'm not an idiot, because I don't buy your idiotic hypotheticals. The burden of proving your statement as true is upon you.
If you could post it in red that would be really cool.
You better tell the Mexican government that their citizens can keep and bear arms. BTW you might tell the Chinese Communists that also.
That being said, illegal or not, aliens present in the United States and its territories and under our jurisdiction have rights extended to them by the Constitution and our laws.
“Well, then you and I disagree. I want the evidence presented to a jury, not second guessed by judges and prosecutors.’
Then you don’t know the slightest thing about our system of justice or the underlying principles that guide them.
For the life I can’t believe what an idiotic statement this is. Prosecutors AND defense attorneys pick and choose what evidence they feel is relevant to their case. The don’t get to tell the other which they can and can’t use so if a prosecutor decides not introduce something the defense can always fill it during their direct or cross.
You say you don’t want prosecutors or judges “second guessing” what evidence to present. Well, than who is going to decide? You? Andrew? THAT’S THE FREAKING JUDGES JOB AND THE REASON THEY ARE THERE.
I’m arguing with incompetent boobs. Why am I wasting my time...
I’ve been doing this for over a year and it’s like “Groundhog Day”. It doesn’t matter what facts are presented, what evidence you proven, I wake up every day with the same idiotic, ignorant rantings and ravings from the lunatic seats at FR who get their information from World Nut Daily.
It’s a circus sideshow.
Do your own work. But do it correctly so that you don't get so much egg on your face.
The U.S. Constitution applied to him then, just as it applied to him later when he was sent to a U.S. prison for a subsequent crime in the United States.
“The US Constitution applies to Mexican citizens?”
As written by the founding fathers, people have certain unalienable rights that have come from God, not man, and that governments and Constitutions are created to secure these rights to them.
Is it your understandind these unalienable rights that come from God are only meant for US citizens? When God made them up he put in a coticil that they should only apply to some and not all?
I am dumbfounded daily by the lack of knowledge, much less understanding, of our Constitution by people who call themselves conservative.
Why is it most of them are Ramos and Compean supporters?
You are well equipped for that.
“That being said, illegal or not, aliens present in the United States and its territories and under our jurisdiction have rights extended to them by the Constitution and our laws.”
That is the clearest most cogent statement I’ve ever seen you make. Could you please educate the other Ramos and Compean supporters who either live in a cave or have only a 5th grade education?
I was not engaged in that conversation. It didn't "roll right off my back." I did not comment on the subject which certainly does not imply I agreed with it (at the time, I didn't even see it). There are a slew of posts on this thread that I don't necessarily agree with. The absence of a comment does not equate to agreement or support.
Are you suggesting that I imagined seeing someone make that argument? That I made it up?
No shit Sherlock. So pick a post that actually applies as an example. According to you they abound. The reason Davila was shot at was not that he was a drug dealer or smuggler nor that he was a Mexican (nobody saw his passport). He was shot at because of his actions.
Enjoy your own little fantasy world.
All one has to do to determine who the "incompetent boobs" are is to google the term "boob-J." You're kind of a legend, to some. ;-)
By the way, are you ever going to answer that question (posed to you FOUR times, now):
When you call others here "bigots," exactly what are you accusing them of being biggoted about?
I only pinged you to that reply because I wanted to put Andrew’s encyclopedic knowledge of everyone’s comments on this thread to use. Forget it. I don’t want him to go off on some tangent.
They don't spend their time playing keyboard cowboy from the comfort of their easy chair, ignoring the Constitution and defending LEO's who abuse their authority and try to shoot unarmed fleeing suspects.
Calcowgirl take note. Earlier I asked to tell me what a "FReeper" is. You ignored it because you don't know. Well let me show you what a REAL FREEPER looks like...
BTW - That's me in the "clinnochio" costume. A bunch of us from the Los Angeles FREEPER chapter took the day off from work to FReep Hillary Clinton at her book signing in Pasadena. We had a couple Hillarys, a Monica, A BC and a couple others. It was Classic FREEPER stuff. I rode up and down the street in front of the bookstore and all the Hillary supporters on a moped with a sign that said "The Clintons Can't Be Trusted".
That evening when the TV news reported it, we got our 10 seconds.
BTW - Don't you love those kneepads on "Monica"? Those were the days when FReepers had vision, ambition and cajones, not just a keyboard and itchy fingers.
The matching kneepads are a nice touch, I think.
Those aren't people "arguing" Constitutional Law, they are simply folks posting nonsense based on emotion, frustration, outright insanity, or the like. I never engage with them--I treat them as trolls and ignore them.
So, in the future, it would be appreciated if the thoughts of those misguided individuals not be attributed to those who are informed and have given a substantive basis for their positions and conclusions. Is that really asking too much?
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.