Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Border Agents Who Shot Smuggler Denied Appeal (Ramos & Compean)
newsmax.com ^ | September 11, 2008 | staff

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government
KEYWORDS: abadshoot; aliens; appeal; badshoot; borderpatrol; compean; dirtycops; immigrantlist; injustice; jackbootcrime; jackbooterslobby; johnnysutton; justice; openborderslobby; ramos; ramoscompean; travesty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880881-896 next last
To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl
Ok, sure. And not only did one of the attorneys have fewer than four days to prepare his/her case, he or she didn't have the presence of mind to ask for more time.

Complain to Chris Antcliff, he was the lawyer. The transcripts show that he was not present prior to Feb 17, 2006, transcript number 4. You brought up the incompetent defense. I cited what the law was concerning shooting fleeing suspects.

861 posted on 09/19/2008 2:39:00 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl
That should have been transcript 5 and this is the announcement from that transcript.

THE COURT: Okay. Now, anything else we need to take
18 up? I just have one other matter. But is there anything
19 anybody needs from the Court, then, regarding this whole issue?
20 MR. ANTCLIFF: For the record, Judge, I am Chris
21 Antcliff, and I entered my appearance on behalf of Mr. Compean,
22 along with Ms. Ramirez, this morning.
23 THE COURT: All right. So you will be co-counsel in
24 the case?
25 MR. ANTCLIFF: I will.
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
5
1 THE COURT: Who is going to be lead? Are you,
2 Ms. Ramirez, going to be lead counsel?
3 MS. RAMIREZ: Yes, Judge.

862 posted on 09/19/2008 2:46:15 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 860 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

You expect me to complain to a defense lawyer that s/he made an ineffective defense? You expect a foot massage with that?


863 posted on 09/19/2008 2:47:12 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 861 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl
You expect me to complain to a defense lawyer that s/he made an ineffective defense? You expect a foot massage with that?

I expect you to complain to the appropriate person. You brought up incompetent lawyers.

864 posted on 09/19/2008 2:55:58 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 863 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; calcowgirl

Most Border Patrol Unions provide insurance that covers attornery’s fees for court cases in which the government leaves agents twisting in the wind. I get my coverage through PORAC. I get competent attorneys with at least a million dollars in coverage. The union Ramos and Compean belonged to apparently decided not to get any kind of protection to keep union dues to a minimum. Needles to say that isn’t the case anymore.


865 posted on 09/19/2008 3:03:25 PM PDT by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 859 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Got it. I brought-up incompetent lawyers. Say, do you remember who brought-up the "fact" that a particular lawyer only had four days to prepare?

Just curious.

866 posted on 09/19/2008 3:05:56 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 864 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin; calcowgirl

From what this case shows me, I would suggest that you leave your gun, asp, pepper spray, and anything else that can be construed as a weapon at home when you go to work. That way someone fleeing you and getting away cannot come back and successfully accuse you of assaulting them(aggravated anyway). Plus without a weapon, 10 years will not be tacked on to the sentence if you are found guilty.


867 posted on 09/19/2008 3:10:14 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 865 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

You are always “just curious”. Well, felix, I did respond to your incompetent lawyer question with the factoid that one of Compean’s lawyers had only four days to prepare, but your complaint was of incompetent defense not 4 day preparation. Four days is a fact. Incompetent is an opinion, yours concerning this subject.


868 posted on 09/19/2008 3:15:44 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 866 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
No. Ramos and Compean had the legal opportunity to claim "ineffective defense," for whatever reason. They did not.

I don't see why you brought it up . . . they didn't.

869 posted on 09/19/2008 3:19:57 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 868 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC; Ajnin
From what this case shows me, I would suggest that you leave your gun, asp, pepper spray, and anything else that can be construed as a weapon at home when you go to work. That way someone fleeing you and getting away cannot come back and successfully accuse you of assaulting them(aggravated anyway). Plus without a weapon, 10 years will not be tacked on to the sentence if you are found guilty.

That's no joke. Remember, Mark Stelmach told the Fifth Circuit that even if a LEO was (simply) carrying a firearm, he could still be prosecuted under 924(c) law.

In other words, even if the officer never takes the gun out of the holster, he can still receive the ten year mandatory because he was in "possession" or "carrying" a gun when he tried to apprehend the suspect.

The fact that it's his official sidearm that he is specifically required to carry as part of his job is irrelevant.

870 posted on 09/19/2008 3:21:57 PM PDT by Cyropaedia ("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 867 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl
I don't see why you brought it up . . . they didn't.

Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.

With that, my answer to you on this subject will be the same.

871 posted on 09/19/2008 3:24:43 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 869 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

Right. And your #859 did not raise the issue of competency. And the Earth is flat.


872 posted on 09/19/2008 3:29:32 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 871 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl

Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.


873 posted on 09/19/2008 3:32:19 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 872 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
Hello? I'm the one assuming that the defense was competent. How stupid are you?
874 posted on 09/19/2008 3:34:15 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 873 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl

Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.


875 posted on 09/19/2008 3:34:55 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 874 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

So let’s just state for the record here, genius. You think the defense was competent, yes?


876 posted on 09/19/2008 3:37:32 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 875 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl

Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.


877 posted on 09/19/2008 3:38:12 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 876 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC

That’s what I thought, you have nothing.


878 posted on 09/19/2008 3:39:25 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy; calcowgirl

Ummm. Mr cat, you brought up ineffective/incompetent defense in post 858.


879 posted on 09/19/2008 3:40:26 PM PDT by AndrewC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 878 | View Replies]

To: calcowgirl
Hey, are you still interested in those "the Constitution does not apply to illegal aliens" citations?

I'll provide them if you wish, but I'm done with this thread otherwise.

880 posted on 09/19/2008 3:41:32 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 877 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 821-840841-860861-880881-896 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson