Proof or STFU.
Policy supports agents
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin Feb 20, 2007.
The agents were convicted partly due to the government's successful argument at trial that the two men failed to file a report about the shooting.But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.
"Ensure that supervisory personnel or INS investigating officers are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident," according to the firearms policy.
"All written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the local INS investigating officers and shall be based upon an interview of the INS employee."
INS refers to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which oversaw the Border Patrol prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The shooting policy has remained unchanged.
Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General documents obtained by the paper show that all nine agents on the scene at the time of the shooting - including two supervisors - knew shots had been fired.
At the scene, Compean was asked by a supervisor if he had been assaulted and responded that he had not been. Neither he, nor Ramos, nor several of the other agents who had heard shots reported to their supervisors that a weapons discharge had taken place. All agree that this failure to report was a violation of clearly-established Border Patrol policy. Nor did the defendants report that they had been threatened by Aldrete-Davila. Ramos and Compean suggested that their failures in reporting that they fired their weapons arose variously from simple mistake and fear of getting in trouble.
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/06/06-51489-CR0.wpd.pdf