The fact that the person is running away from you generally negates the use of deadly force!
I know what both Agents claimed, but unfortunately, both also changed their stories several times.
Ramos had the opportunity to articulate why he fired and the jury came to the same conclusion as I did.
No it doesn't. An officer was recently acquitted for shooting a fleeing unarmed gang member. Someone running away yet possessing a weapon aimed at you constitutes a potentially lethal threat.
I know what both Agents claimed, but unfortunately, both also changed their stories several times.
I don't believe it. You must be kidding me. I really thought you were a rational person who read the testimony. Ramos never made a statement other than his testimony at the trial. Compean essentially clarified what he originally stated in his arresting interrogation in his testimony. It was Juarez and Vasquez, the main prosecution witnesses other than Davila, who changed their stories numerous times. They were fired for doing that.
Ramos had the opportunity to articulate why he fired and the jury came to the same conclusion as I did.
That testimony was not in isolation. It was countered by the testimonies of Juarez and Vasquez who we know to be liars. Tell me what happened at Fabens based on the testimonies and logic. I'll tell you one thing, the prosecution's story is out to lunch.
They did? I don't remember seeing their stories change at all. As I remember from reading the transcripts their stories were consistant with each others testimony as well.