Lou Dobbs: Outrageous, Bush pardons 14 people, including drug dealers, but not Ramos & Compean

I said a lot of things. My statement about Ramos was not in reference to our discussion of your statement taht "And failure to report the shots is not a criminal coverup".

Yes, you do say a lot of things and you should try to keep it straight when and where you say them. Of course, your statement about Ramos was not in reference to mine since yours was in post 164 and mine was in post 183. I made my comment in part due to your statement concluding that Ramos covered up for Compean. Well, the only thing he did was fail to report that shooting had been done and you accused him of criminal coverup.

that doesn't mean Ramos didn't fail to report the shooting because he didn't want it investigated.

Well, for sure it does not in any way support your speculation. He simply failed to do what two agents standing next to Richards failed to do. And they had no idea who did what to whom at that point. They just heard shots.

We also know Ramos and Compean's age, we know how long they were agents, we know what the weather was on that day, we know what tires were on the van. I mention that because they are all irrelevant to the actually shooting.

What actually[sic] shooting? Without the information that you toss away, we have no evidence that Davila was shot at Fabens on Feb 17, 2005. All we have is a wounded Davila, and a bullet stipulated to have been fired from the gun assigned to Ramos and extracted from the thigh of Davila.

This is a mistake some pro-R&C folks continue to make. Ballistics tests were done, they have Ramos' gun and they have the bullet, and the expert verified the bullet came from Ramos' gun. We don't have the actual reports, because nobody published them. The reason it was stipulated that it was Ramos that hit the guy was because it would have wasted the court's time, and the expert's time, to drag him to court when the physical evidence was clear.

No you misunderstand. It is precisely as I stated. It is a stipulation. I believe everything that the stipulation presents, but you are the one arguing physical evidence. And again, without testimony by those at the scene, even if the bullet was firmly established by testimony as coming from Ramos gun, Davila could have been shot by anybody using Ramos gun at any time prior to showing up at the Fort Bliss hospital.

You need testimony to establish that Ramos and Compean made no verbal report, but the fact that the supervisor filed no report about a shooting does allow me to draw an opinion about whether Ramos and Compean properly reported the shooting.

Well, howdy do.

Because there was a shooting, he should not have filed a report at all, and filing a report was physical evidence -- evidence he was not following procedure, from which you could form the opinion that he was trying to hide the shooting from the official record.

Now where do you draw that conclusion? The report of apprehension is still required. Show me your evidence where Compean would have been prohibited from filing the report he did. And mind you we do have a border patrol agent that posts on these threads.

I do not know if they did any fingerprinting that didn't make it into the record because everybody knew he was there, or if they were able to trace the cell phone to him. But we know he was there because we have the physical evidence of the bullet from Ramos' gun. If there had been an appropriate report, we might also have his blood from drips where he got shot, and if the agents had done their job we might have taken him into custody at the site.

Well, read the testimony. Fingerprints did make it into the record, but they were unidentified. Don't try the Kanof BS on reports. According to her the drugs didn't even exist. Still, you confirm that Davila is not known to have been at the scene without testimony. Even if the fingerprints on the van were his, that still would not establish him being at Fabens. All it would establish is that he touched the van.

I discount Ramos and Compean's testimony about distance because it is self-serving. I find the testimony incredible -- try running full speed and then turning to aim a gun, WITHOUT veering an inch one way or another. We've already established that you think Davila is lying, so what difference does it make that he said he wasn't running at an angle?

You didn't read the testimony did you? Davila established the distance in his testimony. And your "veering" statement is a irony on irony, that's exactly what I have said. He turned and that's why he got shot at an angle.

Have you not seen the case studies where a crime is "perpetrated" in front of a class of students, and every one of them gets some detail wrong? I suppose when the person comes back and they see he's wearing a t-shirt with a picture, and they all said he had a button-shirt, that the existance of the t-shirt is a "fairy tale" to you?

Yes, not everybody has perfect recall, but we still use testimony and we use judgement to differentiate amongst the testimonies to determine the most likely fact. And your hypothetical is a red herring, since everybody sees the t-shirt without dissension and I really doubt that 100% of a number of people would be wrong except for a very small group of unobservant people.

You put way too much credence in eye-witness testimony. Even when there is no self-interest, eye-witness testimony is shaky. It is nearly useless when it comes from people with agendas.

And you put to much credence in fairy tales that you make up to fit your preconceptions.

If you go back to the very begining, that's pretty much all I said, that I didn't believe there was a reason to be upset at Bush for not pardoning the men, because in my opinion we should trust the system.

I trust the system, I just think that it failed in this case. And it does do that quite often. And as I said about your participation, why are you even concerned enough to comment in this discussion? Bush hasn't budged an inch and you trust the system. You must not believe in pardons then. Commutations maybe, but certainly you have no basis on which to ever support a pardon.

It was you who argued with me about that.

Bull, the physical evidence here shows that I was discussing an image of a van and you entered the discussion to make up fairy tales. You can keep digging your nonsensical hole deeper and deeper if you want. That is up to you, but I will keep showing that testimony, logic, and evidence trumps your opinion every time.

It's easy if you turn your body. And if I do it while running, I don't trip, and I have a better sight line to aim my shot. I asked two other people just to pretend they had a gun, run away from me, and turn to shoot me, and they both did what I said I would do

Well, then it is established that a turn is required, it 's just that you and your guinea pigs say that turning across your body is less clumsy. I don't believe it, but I can't easily prove it. Nonetheless, turning is a requirement and moreso when turning away from the hand you use. What the physical evidence shows is a turned body to the left or someone running at around a 45 degree angle to the shooter. The running angle is unbelievable since Davila, Compean and Ramos were within a few feet of each other at the start.

Or, he did stop, ...Of course, that all depends on your opinion of the testimony.

Yes, and some of us have rational arguments that show one side is more consistent with the physical evidence than the other.

Well, the only thing he did was fail to report that shooting had been done and you accused him of criminal coverup.

He also said he saw a weapon. If there was no weapon, that would also be part of a criminal coverup.

And his casing was never found at the scene. Although there is no evidence that it was picked up, or of so who picked it up.

So while we only know for certain of one act which is consistent with a coverup, we have testimony which is consistant with a coverup.

But since I've previously explained that my statement about Ramos dealt with his testimony about seeing a weapon, the fact that at some point I got the names wrong of the agent who picked up his casings shouldn't be too confusing.

The testimony, actions, and physical evidence related to Compean are more consistent with a coverup, of course.

He simply failed to do what two agents standing next to Richards failed to do. Those two agents didn't actually shoot anybody. So while they were supposed to report it, their lack of reporting wouldn't suggest their attempt to cover up their own culpability in an act.

However, their lack of reporting is consistent with a common coverup, where they decide to keep quiet because they don't want to get fellow agents in trouble.

No you misunderstand. It is precisely as I stated. It is a stipulation. I believe everything that the stipulation presents, but you are the one arguing physical evidence.

Physical evidence doesn't vanish because it isn't introduced at the trial. I am not talking about physical evidence introduced at the trial, I am talking about physical evidence that exists. The stipulation simply means nobody testified about the physical evidence that exists. Maybe you haven't done so, but others on your side have tried to argue Ramos didn't actually shoot Davila, and that he was shot by someone else later. It is that kind of conspiracy thinking that you encourage by your suggesting the stipulation means we don't know the physical evidence exists.

Show me your evidence where Compean would have been prohibited from filing the report he did. And mind you we do have a border patrol agent that posts on these threads.

He can come and correct me, but my understanding reading the regulations was that, when there is a shooting involved, the agents who shoot are NOT supposed to file a written report. Instead, they are supposed to brief their superior officer, who is to then do an investigation and file the official report.

I don't remember anything in that regulation that suggested the agents should file a partial report omitting the shooting.

However, I will admit that I was got confused by what you wrote, and thought you were saying that his report showed he was "apprehensive". I now see that you meant he filed a report of "apprehension", I guess reporting that he temporarily "apprehended" the suspect before he failed to aprehend him? That wasn't what I thought you meant before, and if that is a separate report I guess it makes sense he would have to file it.

And you put to much credence in fairy tales that you make up to fit your preconceptions.

You keep using the word "fairy tales". I don't think you know what it actually means. A "fairy tale" would be that aliens came down and shot Davila. My statements are about pluasible scenarios which fit the physical evidence but contradict or go beyond the verbal testimony.

If you have kids, surely you've had a time when something was broken, and after questioning your kids who denied having anything to do with it you knew exactly what had happened. But in this context you would call that knowledge a "fairy tale" simply because the kids didn't say it.

As I said, it's just a wrong use of the word "fairy tale", and you do so because you can't refute the plausibility of my scenario so you label it with a prejoritive in the hopes other readers are ignorant.

Davila established the distance in his testimony.

You mean the acknowledged liar Davila. It could have been 180 feet, I simply discount any knowledge of the distance. The physical evidence is that it would take a great shot to hit him at 180 feet, and my guess is that if it WAS 180 feet, the rest of the shooting didn't happen precisely as it is explained. Compean missed with multiple shots from a closer distance. But it certainly is possible Ramos got a good shot from 180 feet. On the other hand, sometimes I make basketball shots by aiming wrong because I always miss and my miss sometimes hits the target because it isn't where I was aiming.

And your "veering" statement is a irony on irony, that's exactly what I have said. He turned and that's why he got shot at an angle.

You misunderstood. If he's running and he turns around to shoot while running, it is almost certain his direction of running will turn in the direction he turned his body. It takes a lot of training to learn how to turn while running without veering. If he veered when he turned, he would then be running at an angle -- something that Davila, Ramos, and Compean all say he did NOT do, which I find incredible since Ramos and Compean say he DID turn while running.

Of course, it is possible for a person to turn and still run straight. It's just implausible. Anyway, "veer" is not "turn". turn is a twist of the body, "veer" is a change in the direction of forward motion.

Ramos comes up, and sees Davila turning his body while still running straight away, and he perceives a weapon in Davila's hand so he shoots him, and the bullet goes in through the buttucks area at an angle.

Well, when I run my hips already twist back and forth to provide angles, depending on which foot is in front of the other. And when I twist my upper body to turn and look back, my left hip is still only further back than my right when my left leg is behind my right leg, which is only half the time.

In my opinion, while the theory about "turning" is consistent with the angle, the angle can also be explained by hip motion while running, by common variations in running style, and yes, even by turning the head to look back, WITHOUT swinging an arm to point a weapon.

The angle shows that the hips were at an angle. They don't explain why. I bet if we put a person on a track and told them to shoot 10 average people running away in the behind, a lot of the shots would end up at an angle. But that's an experiment we probably won't do.

Well, then it is established that a turn is required,

You have that backwards. If we presume the thing we are trying to prove (that Davila turned), then we know that a turn is required. But we have in no way established that a turn is required in order to explain the trajectory of the bullet.

The argument seems a bit silly anyway, since my belief is that Davila didn't have a weapon, and therefore did not turn to point a weapon at Ramos. I think it is quite plausible that he turned to see if anybody was following him, in which case he could turn in either direction, and this would explain the angle of the wound. People running away often turn back to see if someone is getting close to them, so it's not a "fairy tale" to suggest it happened in this case.

The only "evidence" that Davila pointed a weapon at Compean is the testimony of Compean which he used to justify shooting at Davila. The only "evidence" that Davila pointed a weapon at Ramos is the testimony of Ramos and Compean, who need an excuse to claim they were threatened by a man they say was 180 feet away (that's over half a football field) and running away from them.

Of course, no man testified that Davila ever fired a shot. If Davila was trying to slow down his pursuers, it would make a lot more sense if he held his gun back while NOT turning to look, and just fired some shots so the agents had to dive for cover.

Turning an aiming a weapon without firing is just stupid. Now, I can believe Davila is stupid, but why wouldn't he fire his gun? Of course, you can ask why he didn't just pick up the rifle. The rational answer is that Davila didn't have a weapon, he didn't want a weapon, he just wanted to get over the border so he wouldn't get arrested.

The testimony, actions, and physical evidence related to Compean are more consistent with a coverup, of course.

Only in your opinion. External evidence supports Ramos and Compean. Davila places them both on the vega close together. Hed testifies only one group of shots followed by a single shot, etc. So saying that they saw Davila do something threatening is much more believable than your theory that they must be lying because lying helps them. That is the entirety of your argument, aside from the fact that you are arguing about something that should not concern you. You trust that the decision was correct.

The testimony, actions, and physical evidence related to Compean are more consistent with a coverup, of course.

Only in your opinion. External evidence supports Ramos and Compean. Davila places them both on the vega close together. Hed testifies only one group of shots followed by a single shot, etc. So saying that they saw Davila do something threatening is much more believable than your theory that they must be lying because lying helps them. That is the entirety of your argument, aside from the fact that you are arguing about something that should not concern you. You trust that the decision was correct.

Physical evidence doesn't vanish because it isn't introduced at the trial.

You certainly have difficulty reading. The bullet is physical evidence, yes. But what it means is not. As I stated what you can only say without testimony even if the bullet was not stipulated but ran through the whole process, is that the bullet came from Ramos pistol. Not that Ramos shot it, Not that it hit Davila at Fabens, nor anything else about it relevant to the case without testimony.

He can come and correct me, but my understanding reading the regulations was that, when there is a shooting involved, the agents who shoot are NOT supposed to file a written report. Instead, they are supposed to brief their superior officer, who is to then do an investigation and file the official report.

Agaiin for the umpteenth time, Compean filed a necessary report of the seizure of drugs and a cell phone which is entirely different than the report of shooting. Pay attention.

My statements are about pluasible scenarios which fit the physical evidence but contradict or go beyond the verbal testimony.

Plausible to you. Fairy tales to other people. It is a fairy tale when you have to call everybody a liar to make your story from being a hilarious riot.

You mean the acknowledged liar Davila. It could have been 180 feet, I simply discount any knowledge of the distance. The physical evidence is that it would take a great shot to hit him at 180 feet, and my guess is that if it WAS 180 feet, the rest of the shooting didn't happen precisely as it is explained. Compean missed with multiple shots from a closer distance. But it certainly is possible Ramos got a good shot from 180 feet. On the other hand, sometimes I make basketball shots by aiming wrong because I always miss and my miss sometimes hits the target because it isn't where I was aiming.

Not just him, but you won't accept anyone else, and you have to believe Davila in order to have him without a gun. The rest of your para has been answered. Plus, Yrigoyen verified that on the day seconds after the incident Compean told him the events as he later described in his testimony.

You misunderstood. If he's running and he turns around to shoot while running, it is almost certain his direction of running will turn in the direction he turned his body. It takes a lot of training to learn how to turn while running without veering. If he veered when he turned, he would then be running at an angle -- something that Davila, Ramos, and Compean all say he did NOT do, which I find incredible since Ramos and Compean say he DID turn while running.

NOT.

Look at all the people turned and running straight away.

Well, when I run my hips already twist back and forth to provide angles, depending on which foot is in front of the other. And when I twist my upper body to turn and look back, my left hip is still only further back than my right when my left leg is behind my right leg, which is only half the time.

Same picture look at the hips. In any case, I have 'expert' testimony that says it is possible under exactly the conditions testified to by Ramos and Compean.

You have that backwards. If we presume the thing we are trying to prove (that Davila turned), then we know that a turn is required. But we have in no way established that a turn is required in order to explain the trajectory of the bullet.

Hey, we were arguing about the hand used. For the situation where Davila is running at 45 degress, I answered that in the sentence that followed. Face it, Davila turned.(or "veered" if you prefer)

The only "evidence" that Davila pointed a weapon at Compean is the testimony of Compean which he used to justify shooting at Davila. The only "evidence" that Davila pointed a weapon at Ramos is the testimony of Ramos and Compean, who need an excuse to claim they were threatened by a man they say was 180 feet away (that's over half a football field) and running away from them.

Isn't that what I've said? You believe a confirmed liar who did start the process to sue for 5 million dollars. I believe the agents who were on the line and responded like they should have instead of like Juarez and Vasquez who shirked their duty.

As to how stupid Davila is, he's in jail now. If he was such pure saint he would have been retired in Acapulco by now. 5 million times over.

That is not the totality of my argument.

They didn't report the shooting.

They didn't warn any other agents at the scene about any danger.

They didn't act like they were in any danger, except when they shot at the guy.

They didn't tell anybody else that they had seen a weapon, until they were suspects being questioned. Note that even if you presume that they didn't report the shooting because they assumed their supervisor knew there was a shooting, they CERTAINLY would know that the supervisor had no way of knowing Davila had a gun unless they told the supervisor he had a gun -- but neither testified that they told anybody about the gun.

Davila says he didn't have a gun. Davila didn't SHOOT a gun. No evidence was found to indicate Davila owned a gun. No evidence was found to indicate Davila used a gun in any other crimes he committed.

SO there is a lot of evidence that suggests Davila did not have a gun. The only evidence that Davila had a gun are two guys who shot at him saying they thought they saw a gun -- which is exactly what LEOs say whenever they are questioned about a shooting, even in cases where the guy is dead and there is no gun found.

Maybe they all do think they see a gun. Or maybe some of them are saying what they have to because they don't want to go to jail.

BTW, I notice several times you say that Davila placed the agents, or that he gave a distance. Both of those imply that Davila looked back to see where they were, which suggests that his testimony wasn't so clearly indicating that he NEVER turned around to look. In other words, you have said that Davila denied ever turning around, but you've also said he openly testified to information he would need to turn around to get, so he clearly isn't trying to hide the fact that he looked at the agents at some point.

BTW, The proximate start of this subthread we are having was post 162. In that post, I stated briefly my belief that simply looking at the physical evidence and what Ramos and Compean were saying was enough for me to believe they could be guilty.

Since then you have been arguing that point with me, by attempting to provide reasons why I should believe parts of their testimony, or suggesting that my theories were "fairy tales" because they didn't match what people said happened.

And I said I wasn't sure I'd have sent them to prison for it, but given that I could believe they were guilty, I wasn't going to get mad at Bush for concluding the same thing.

I had to laugh that you showed a still picture and claimed it showed people running without veering when they looked back. Of course, I think I can identify several people whose next step will be to the left or right of their current location, but since it is a still picture it is hard to tell.

Thanks for your explanation of the bullet information. You are correct, I am assuming certain facts to claim physical evidence, facts that in a trial are arrived at through testimony. But I'm not stuck by legal strictures, and given that nobody has claimed Ramos' gun was stolen, it seems no great leap of faith that if Ramos' gun's bullet is in Davila, that Davila had to be at the scene and Ramos had to have hit him with his shot.

Of course, without testimony I can't say there was a shot. Davila could have ran off with only people screaming "bang bang", and later stolen Ramos' gun and shot himself.

BTW, that would be what I would call a "fairy tale".

Thanks for the clarification of your statement about "report of apprehansion". I misunderstood that to mean he was apprehensive, and then misunderstood it to mean he apprehended the subject. It seems an odd name for a seizure report. Of course he could file a seizure report because that was a separate act from the chase/shooting. I'm sorry I got confused. I'm trying to respond to things you have said, and when you said he filed a report which I had not heard before I tried to take that into account. Now that I know the full story I feel more fully informed.

BTW, if you ever before in this thread said the report was strictly about the drugs and cell phone, I apologize for missing that. This is the first time I remember reading that, and it was very helpful.

Plausible to you. Fairy tales to other people. It is a fairy tale when you have to call everybody a liar to make your story from being a hilarious riot.

You already called Davila a liar, and it doesn't seem at all odd to suggest that two convicted felons might have told a fib to help get themselves off. It's not like there was any danger to them lying, they just said they thought they saw him turn and point a weapon at them. Nobody can claim perjury for them saying what they thought they saw. Heck, even THEY wouldn't say for certain he had a weapon.

But it's good to know that you would call the facts a fairy tale if I was able to get enough people to lie to you about it.

Not just him, but you won't accept anyone else, and you have to believe Davila in order to have him without a gun.

That is a false construction, like saying I have to believe Davila to believe it was light outside when the incident occured. I believe he did not have a gun, without regard to his statement that he did not have a gun. I have explained why I think he did not have a gun in other posts. I do think Davila tells the truth in some matters, where the truth happens to help him anyway.

Same picture look at the hips. In any case, I have 'expert' testimony that says it is possible under exactly the conditions testified to by Ramos and Compean.

If you look at the picture, you will see that for those who are turned, and those who are not, whichever leg is behind, that hip is behind. FOr those who have turned, if their leg is also behind in the same side, the hip is more turned. BTW, if you look carefully you will see that every person seems to be turned toward the side of whichever leg is behind at the time. And I bet if you asked them, they would all say they ran away, and might not mention looking back or veering.

Face it, Davila turned.(or "veered" if you prefer)

We don't know for certain that either happened, but it seems reasonable he did one or the other. But what I am sure of is that turning and veering are different things, one involved rotating your body, and the other involves moving in a different direction. And that is what we were arguing about. Well, actually, we were arguing about whether the angle of the bullet was evidence that the two agents were threatened by Davila. But we left that argument a long time ago and moved to a discussion of which way he would have turned if he had actually HAD a gun and wanted to actually AIM it at the agents, GIVEN which hand he was holding the gun in.

Since I don't think he had a gun, I don't think he pointed it at anybody. But it wouldn't surprise me if he turned to see where people were, or if he veered when turning and ran at an angle, or if he ran at an angle for a few steps without turning, or if he veered to get around an obstacle and failed to mention it.

All of these are plausible, notwithstanding that they don't match what Ramos and Compean said they saw. But I don't believe there was a weapon either even though they said they saw one, so really it seems we are arguing over the fact that I don't believe Davila.

You believe a confirmed liar who did start the process to sue for 5 million dollars. I believe the agents who were on the line and responded like they should have instead of like Juarez and Vasquez who shirked their duty.

I don't really believe any of them. I think he turned but he didn't have a weapon. Davila says he didn't turn, Compean and Ramos say he had a weapon. And obviously my opinion of whether they responded like they should have is different from yours, since I don't think they should have shot Davila, and I think they should have actually pursued him to arrest him until he actually crossed the border.

They didn't ...

Just because Kanof posed the question does not make it a legitimate one. The situation was completed rapidly and only Ramos and Compean were in view of Davila until Yrigoyen and Mendez came upon them at the top of the levee. By that time, testimony shows that Davila was spotted by Mendez beyond the Mexican levee roads in a cultivated field. That places a levee between them and Davila. So he wasn't a threat. They also didn't tell anyone what Davila looked like. That didn't make Davila disappear.

which is exactly what LEOs say whenever they are questioned about a shooting, even in cases where the guy is dead and there is no gun found.

Which is exactly what LEO's say when the guy does have a gun. And dead agents can't answer questions.

BTW, I notice several times you say that Davila placed the agents, or that he gave a distance. Both of those imply that Davila looked back to see where they were, which suggests that his testimony wasn't so clearly indicating that he NEVER turned around to look. In other words, you have said that Davila denied ever turning around, but you've also said he openly testified to information he would need to turn around to get, so he clearly isn't trying to hide the fact that he looked at the agents at some point.

Damn, can't you read? Davila testified he looked back just after he was shot. Unless a transporter beam moved Ramos and Compean where he saw them, they were there when the last shot was fired. He places them in the middle of the vega. Now that description is from cockroach level eyes.

BTW, The proximate start of this subthread we are having was post 162. In that post, I stated briefly my belief that simply looking at the physical evidence and what Ramos and Compean were saying was enough for me to believe they could be guilty.

Well, that post does not have the word physical in it. And you were emphasizing that Ramos and Compean's statements were the focus of your decision apart from anything else. In fact you throw out everything else at the end.

Since then you have been arguing that point with me, by attempting to provide reasons why I should believe parts of their testimony, or suggesting that my theories were "fairy tales" because they didn't match what people said happened.

Nope. I know you won't be convinced. I use you as a foil.

I had to laugh that you showed a still picture and claimed it showed people running without veering when they looked back. Of course, I think I can identify several people whose next step will be to the left or right of their current location, but since it is a still picture it is hard to tell.

Well, I'm glad you got a laugh out of it since you didn't get much more that was there. You did recognize that it was a still picture and the the people depicted in it were in motion. Well one thing for sure unless this photograph got all those people looking back exactly at the same time it indicates that some people are running straight while looking back.

I agree, Ramos shot Davila, but I draw that conclusion from more than ballistics.

BTW, that would be what I would call a "fairy tale".

Exactly, and no one here has promoted such a fairy tale, since the testimony indicates otherwise.

I'm glad I cleared things up on the reports, and no I don't believe I discussed the contents of the report prior to that mention.

I don't really believe any of them.

You gotta believe somebody there and that doesn't mean you believe everything they say. But for me, I can't find a thing that Ramos stated which was not "provable" or extremely plausible. The only witnesses that seemed to be as credible were Yrigoyen or Supervisor Arnold.