Posted on 12/05/2008 3:15:58 PM PST by 2dogjoe
That Ramos and/or Compean engaged in a pattern of silence, failed to report a shooting where a target may have been hit, destroyed evidence by collecting and destroying evidence and in my opinion offered testimony the defied common sense, is not in dispute. The charge that was dismissed was done so on a TECHNICALITY, the court ruling the BP investigation was not “an official proceeding”, did not dispute that these actions took place.
Yet you would use it in a disengenuous effort to imply that R&C did not engage on these activities only shows the extent which R&C pardon supporters will go to ignore the the law and the facts and to spin the incident like it didn’t happen the way it did.
....We conclude. For the most part, the trial of this case was about credibility, and although the jury could have gone either way, it chose not to believe the defendants’ version of the crucial events of February 17. The trial of the case was conducted fairly and without reversible error. The exclusion of evidence relating to the size of the marijuana load and Aldrete-Davila’s alleged involvement in drug-trafficking events of October 2005 did not violate the defendants’ Sixth Amendment rights to present a complete defense nor did it deny them a proper cross-examination of a witness against them. They were denied no right of due process for lack of notice that § 924(c) could be applied to police officers while performing law enforcement duties. Nor was the § 924(c) indictment defective. Moreover, the defendants were properly convicted of substantive crimes, not for violating Border Patrol policies. In instructing the jury, no reversible errors were committed and, finally, the evidence fully supports the jury verdict. We therefore affirm the convictions for counts 1 through 5 and counts 11 and 12.
....However, we reverse and vacate the convictions for obstruction of justice under § 1512(c)—counts 6 through 10 of the indictment—because the Border Patrol investigation was not an “official proceeding” within the meaning of the statute. We therefore remand for resentencing not inconsistent with this opinion.....AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND VACATED IN PART; and REMANDED FOR RESENTENCING
The counts to which this ruling applies:Count 1: 18 U.S.C. §§7(3), 113(a)(1) & (2) (Both Ramos and Compean)
..... Assault with Intent to Commit Murder, and Aiding and Abetting
Count 2: 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(3) & 2 (Both)
..... Assault with a Dangerous Weapon and Aiding and Abetting
Count 3: 18 U.S.C. §§ 113(a)(6) & 2: (Both)
..... Assault with serious bodily injury and Aiding and Abetting
Count 4: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Ramos)
.... Discharge of a Firearm in Commission of a Crime of Violence
Count 5: 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A) (Compean)
.... Discharge of a Firearm in Commission of a Crime of Violence
Count 6: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) (Compean)
.... Tampering with an Official Proceeding
Count 7: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (Compean)
.... Tampering with an Official Proceeding
Count 8: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (Both)
.... Tampering with an Official Proceeding
Count 9: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) (Ramos)
.... Tampering with an Official Proceeding
Count 10: 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(1) (Compean)
.... Tampering with an Official Proceeding
Count 11: 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Compean)
.... Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Count 12: 18 U.S.C. § 242 (Ramos)
.... Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law
Most every one of your claims is in dispute. But go ahead and keep makin' it up as you go.
And by the way, I don't call it a "pattern of silence" when someone is charged with murder and chooses to speak through an attorney instead of 'cooperating' with Johnny Sutton and his thugs.
Only by those willing to overlook the deprivation of civil rights by LEO's as long as mexicans get shot up.
"And by the way, I don't call it a "pattern of silence" when someone is charged with murder and chooses to speak through an attorney..."
No, that's a constitutional right. However, it is a pattern of silence when answering to supervisors when asked about it with "nuttin' honey" and not mentioning it in written reports...after you've collected the evidence and disposed of it.
That's not only silence it's a cover up.
More... original sentencing, modified to strike out the bogus convictions that were vacated by the court:
Counts . Disposition Ignacio Ramos (1) 18:113G.F ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND AIDING AND ABETTING (2sss) 12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release with a $2000.00 FINE and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 8sss, 9sss, & 12sss 18:113B.F ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AND AIDING AND ABETTING (3sss) 12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 2sss, 8sss, 9sss, & 12sss 18:924C.F DISCHARGE OF A FIRARM IN COMMISSION OF A CRIME OF VIOLENCE (4sss) Sentenced to 120 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run consecutive with counts 2sss, 3sss, 8sss, 9sss & 12sss 18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (8sss)12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 2sss, 9sss, & 12sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (9sss)12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 8sss, 2sss, & 12sss18:242.F DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (12sss) 12 months and 1 day imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and a $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with counts 3sss, 8sss, 9sss, & 2sss Jose Alonso Compean (2) 18:113G.F ASSAULT WITH A DANGEROUS WEAPON AND AIDING AND ABETTING (2sss) Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release with a $2000.00 FINE and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 10sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss 18:113B.F ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS BODILY INJURY AND AIDING AND ABETTING (3sss) Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 10sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss 18:924C.F USE OF A FIREARM IN RELATION TO A CRIME OF VIOLENCE (5sss) Sentenced to 120 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run consecutive with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, 10sss & 11sss 18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (6sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 10sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH A OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (7sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 10sss, 8sss, & 11sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (8sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 10sss, & 11sss18:1512C.F TAMPERING WITH AN OFFICIAL PROCEEDING (10sss)Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 11sss18:242.F DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW (11sss) Sentenced to 24 months imprisonment to be followed by 3 years supervised release and $100.00 S/A to run concurrent with 2sss, 3sss, 6sss, 7sss, 8sss, & 10sss
So, as I said earlier, there is no need for a pardon for any of the alleged tampering, cover-ups, etc. Assault, Civil rights violations, and discharge of a firearm in a "crime of violence" are the remaining charges.
Thanks for adding the additional info.
Now what needs to be done is for some of these Political critters that holler about this case need to get on with their job and rewrite the statute to exclude LEOs or whomever they think should be excluded.
That won’t help Ramos/Compean any but may help some others in the future.
Ah... y;ou're pulling the old "they were out to shoot Mexicans" mantra again, huh? Some on FR claimed that the prosecution even had evidence of this when they made that allegation to Congress. They were later found to be lying. Why aren't you upset about that pattern of silence and lying in the IG's office?, huh?
No, that's a constitutional right. However, it is a pattern of silence when answering to supervisors when asked about it with "nuttin' honey" and not mentioning it in written reports...after you've collected the evidence and disposed of it. That's not only silence it's a cover up.
Which they did not do. But like I said, go ahead and keep makin' it up as you go.
Uhh no, I'm pulling out the "they shot a fleeing unarmed suspect in the back" mantra.
You're welcome! There have already been at least two bills introduced for just that purpose. I'd have to search to find the others (that I think were also introduced):
H.R.6367Title: To provide an exception to certain mandatory minimum sentence requirements for a law enforcement officer who uses, carries, or possesses a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence committed while pursuing or apprehending a suspect.
Sponsor: Rep Brady, Kevin [TX-8] (introduced 6/25/2008)
Cosponsors (30)
Related Bills: H.R.3436
Latest Major Action: 6/25/2008 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R.3436
Title: To provide for greater judicial discretion in sentencing for certain firearms offenses committed in exceptional circumstances.
Sponsor: Rep Reyes, Silvestre [TX-16] (introduced 8/3/2007)
Cosponsors (None)
Related Bills: H.R.6367
Latest Major Action: 9/10/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
LOL!
From Johnny Sutton's mouth to your keyboard.
Speaking of lying to Congress, Sutton told some whoppers in those Senate hearings. Hopefully President Bush won't put that panty-waist on the federal bench before January.
Since Reyes is a democrat he may have a better chance of getting his version out of committee assuming he will introduce it in the 111th Congress next year. Apparently neither one go as far as a hearing in this Congress.
I want a petition to put Bob J in jail.
You may be right.
It really should be a bipartisan-issue, but it seems most everything tries to get labeled as ‘right’ vs. ‘left’ these days.
In this case it should just be ‘right’ vs. ‘wrong.’
You’re a PITA, Bob. All you ever do is employ facts and logic. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.