Replies

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.

"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."

Excellent, you boiled it down in a nut shell. If you're wrestling with him, you have the opportunity to disarm him and shoot him with his own weapon.

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.

I won't bother to post to the unnamed since that is what he did. Maybe so. But they chose the wrong person to believe. It is known that Juarez changed his story at least 3 times. But more than that this is his actual testimony at the trial on the altercation at the ditch.

2 Q. And did he not only aim it, did he actually swing it?
3 A. He went like this.
4 Q. And just a partial swing or full swing?
5 A. No, it was a full swing.
6 Q. And did he hit the fleeing driver?
7 A. No, he did not.
8 Q. But before that happened, did you happen to see what the
9 driver was doing?
10 A. He was just trying to get on the other side.
11 Q. Did you notice the driver's hands?
12 A. Yes, I did.
13 Q. And where did he have his hands?
14 A. When he got over there, I noticed the driver when Agent
15 Compean attempted to block him or hit him, the driver of the
16 van went like this. But he was fast. I mean, that driver was
17 fast. He went like that. And went, boom, he took off right
18 away.
19 Q. But as he's approaching Agent Compean, do you see if his
20 hands are raised or lowered?
21 A. No. Almost like this, like trying to block. Trying to
22 block him or --
23 Q. But his hands were already raised when he attempts to
24 block?
25 A. Yes, they were.

He had to be led by the prosecution to come up with the hands raised. His initial response was "NO"(line 21)