You continue to attempt to tap dance out of your idiotic statements. You charged Ajnin with going on and on about the border patrol policy. It was important to note that he entered the discussion to spank you. He did that. The discussion went on because you kept going on and on about it.
Which include, for the record, #194:
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.And #212:
[citation ommitted]
From the 5th Circuit opinion:Like I said, you guys keep returning to this issue like dogs to vomit, but you can't argue substance.
The government produced evidence showing that the defendants violated a number of Border Patrol policies in pursuing and firing upon Aldrete-Davila. The defendants characterize the trial as one in which the Border Patrol policies were substituted for the actual crimes charged and that by permitting evidence that established policies were violated and strict rules were broken the district court allowed the government to avoid the more difficult task of showing that the defendants had engaged in criminal conduct. The defendants were charged with tampering with an official proceeding under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c) by failing to report the shooting to their supervisors. They argue on a number of grounds that such a failure to act constitutes neither tampering with evidence nor inhibiting an official proceeding, an argument that we conclude has merit.The 5th Circuit vacated the portion of the convictions regarding "tampering with an official proceeding." Unfortunately, it is not the "meat" of the (other) convictions that are keeping Ramos and Compean in prison. In other words, the whole "was or was not policy violated" argument is really a red herring, and taken in a light most favorable to the defense (and there is no reason we shouldn't) is still a Pyrrhic victory for Ramos and Compean.
Incidentally, #212 is a fairly good example of what is called a "counter-argument." Try providing one some time . . . it may even make people believe you are capable of "thinking for yourself."