Replies

"My comment about the LEO's ascertaining constitutional rights in advance is a direct response to the notion that there are two classes of individuals within the jurisdiction of the United States--those who are entitled to constitutional rights, and those who are not entitled to constitutional rights."

How many "Constitutional Rights" are you entitled to after wrestling with a law enforcement officer in the course of his sworn duties? My understanding of the law is that they are almost microscopically small at that point. If you threaten his life in any way, your's are forfeit.

You know what? I'll give you the courtesy of a response because your question is legitimate. I won't bother pinging anyone else who chooses to mischaracterize my argument.

On an abstract level, you are still "entitled" to your constitutional rights when wrestling with a law enforcement officer in the course of his sworn duties. That being said, and to be blunt, when wrestling with a law enforcement officer in the course of his sworn duties his sworn duty is to shoot you.

Here's our problem (switching out of "abstract" mode): according to testimony, Aldrete-Davila was running away when Compean started firing his handgun (keeping in mind that he had dropped his shotgun and that Ramos may not have seen any of this and fired thinking he was protecting his partner). There is no legal basis for the shooting at this point (by Compean) unless you believe that Aldrete-Davila was armed (as was argued). If he is armed, good shoot. If not, no way (under any circumstance, including the bogus "he's not eligible for constitutional protection" argument).

In my opinion, this is where Juarez' testimony is devastating to the defense. Juarez testifies that he sees Aldrete-Davila attempting to surrender (hands up, no weapon). At this point things go haywire. I will not go farther, other than to say that Compean and Juarez contradict each other and that we are allowed to presume (here's that word, hi AndrewC!) that the jury found Juarez more believable than Compean.

“How many “Constitutional Rights” are you entitled to after wrestling with a law enforcement officer in the course of his sworn duties?”

IMO opinion Compean lied about “going down on one knee” after he slipped trying to butt OAD in the head with his shotgun. He went face down in the ditch (not all the way down) and that is how he got his face dirty and scratched up. He lied about “throwing the shotgun down”, it went several feet into the ditch and he realized it would take too long to retrieve it if he still wanted a chance at catching OAD and not looking like a goof to his fellow agents.

There is no way I could believe that a short, portly weighed down, heavy booted (he was carrying a lot of gear) Compean could chase down and tackle a young, wiry 6 foot tall, sneaker clad OAD. Compean lied about tackling and struggling with OAD to explain the dirt and scratches and also to justify his shoot because he was “assaulted” by OAD.

So you and Andrew can keep taking every word of Compean as the gospel truth, but my opinion is he was a lying, perjuring bad cop trying desperately to justify a bad shoot.

And the jury thought so as well.