Posted on 12/24/2008 4:24:47 AM PST by Dr. Scarpetta
The harshness of the penalty does not affect the above, it simply allows us to disagree with the consequences of the "right" or "wrong" action.
No, they had him under suspicion of smuggling and illegally crossing the border, but they had cause to believe he pointed a gun at them. So they had a right to defend themselves up to and including killing him. Other officers even testified to seeing him turn in this fashion.
I didn't realize the punishment for that was immediate execution.
but they had cause to believe he pointed a gun at them.
Is that why they picked up their shell casings and covered up the shooting? Because it was justified?
Other officers even testified to seeing him turn in this fashion.
Other officers? You have any names?
Please do not parse my words and then attempt to put your own meaning into them. I did not say they had a right to immediate execution under any circumstance! I said they believed they were about to be fired upon and had a right to return fire - and had they killed him, the investigation would have proven them guilty of doing their jobs!
Give me a minute and I will go back and look up the names. There were other officers that testified in statements both for and against these agents. Again, they were not charged with simply violating procedure - they were charged with violating his civil rights and assualt. I think that is BS!
When did they “lie” about the shooting? They did a report on the site with other agents at the scene. They were going to loose their jobs due to violating procedures. You see, they were “wrong” for not following procedures, but to prosecute them for doing their jobs of enforcing the law is BS!
I understand that this is a fine line, but we are talking about the word of a known drug smuggler against that of two decorated border patrol agents. Sorry, but I am going to lean to the side of the agents.
Parse your words? You mean these?
No, he was breaking the law when they were attempting to do their jobs, so he deserved it.
Maybe you should define "it"?
I said they believed they were about to be fired upon
Are you telepathic now?
and had a right to return fire - and had they killed him, the investigation would have proven them guilty of doing their jobs!
They definitely should return fire. But they didn't. If they had done their job correctly, he'd be in jail and they'd be free.
If they'd have killed him and no gun was found, would that still be okay, because they found out later he was smuggling? Would it be okay to kill him if he wasn't smuggling? If he was just entering the country illegally?
Again, they were not charged with simply violating procedure
Covering up a shooting is more than a violation of procedure, even in Texas.
My “it” was their returning fire. So according to you, they should always wait to be fired upon before shooting? Obviously you never spent time under duress in a fire fight! No, I am not telepathic; however, I am willing to believe two decorated border patrol agents over the word of a known, convicted drug smuggler.
You keep saying “covered up a shooting”, when in fact they did a report with other agents at the scene at the same time as the shooting! At best, they picked up their casings which could be obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence. Both of which I MIGHT agree with, but it would take a lot of alcohol to see the point! But assault? Violating his civil rights? Apparently illegal aliens have the “civil right” to enter and smuggle drugs into America and to threaten the lives of BP agents? I am looking at this all wrong; heck, I thought we had laws against those things.
Where do you imagine I said that?
No, I am not telepathic; however, I am willing to believe two decorated border patrol agents over the word of a known, convicted drug smuggler.
He was a known smuggler when they allowed him to escape?
You keep saying “covered up a shooting”, when in fact they did a report with other agents at the scene at the same time as the shooting!
No they didn't.
At best, they picked up their casings which could be obstruction of justice or tampering with evidence.
Covering up a crime.
heck, I thought we had laws against those things.
If they had done their job, he'd have been in prison for those crimes. And they would be free.
False. Both Ramos and Compean failed to report that they had discharged their weapons. Compean picked-up/otherwise hid his brass and asked another agent to do the same. Both were aware of the policy regarding firearms discharges. (Ramos was actually a firearms instructor).
As a matter of fact, even Ramos and Compean testified that they violated policy. It's just odd that their defenders cling to the argument that they didn't. Really odd. As if people are counting on others' unfamiliarity with the criminal case that resulted.
Once again, you refused to read my statements. I said they did NOT follow policy, but that is not the same as assault and civil rights violations!
They did a report ON-SITE with other agents. They failed to report that they fired their weapons, then under further review they stated that they did in fact, and why they did so.
Again, you want to charge them with obstruction or tampering with evidence - okay. But assault and civil rights violations? This was a total injustice that the American taxpayers had to pay for!
Yeah, when they pulled Ramos' bullet out of Davila's ass.
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.