It wasn’t helpful that they interfered with a crime scene—which is illegal—and it was their own scene. Worse yet.
So they have to spend years and years in prison.
Some of us don't see shooting an invader in the butt as a crime. That thinking is reserved for quislings.
I think they should have been given medals for trying to repel an invader from a foreign country. But, I guess you don't care that they were trying to protect you and your family.
No, the worst thing was the use of gun laws designed to punish criminals that were never meant to be use against law enforcement agents.
“It wasn’t helpful that they interfered with a crime scene—which is illegal—and it was their own scene.”
You are right. They tried to cover up their doings. If they hadn’t doen that, they might be free today. But don’t try and convince the many Bush haters here on FR. The cover up is always worse than the crime.
I keep hearing stuff like this and something about them being dirty agents. What exactly does this mean? What did they actually do (supposedly) that was so wrong and where is the proof to that effect? All I know is that we seem to be rewarding the drug dealers and punishing the law enforcers. Now...I realize that for the past (what?) fifteen years or so...everything in this world and especially in this country has been backasswards from what it should be...but I thought I ‘at least’ had this case figured out.
Care to shed some light on it for me?
I keep hearing stuff like this and something about them being dirty agents. What exactly does this mean? What did they actually do (supposedly) that was so wrong and where is the proof to that effect? All I know is that we seem to be rewarding the drug dealers and punishing the law enforcers. Now...I realize that for the past (what?) fifteen years or so...everything in this world and especially in this country has been backasswards from what it should be...but I thought I ‘at least’ had this case figured out.
Care to shed some light on it for me?
I keep hearing stuff like this and something about them being dirty agents. What exactly does this mean? What did they actually do (supposedly) that was so wrong and where is the proof to that effect? All I know is that we seem to be rewarding the drug dealers and punishing the law enforcers. Now...I realize that for the past (what?) fifteen years or so...everything in this world and especially in this country has been backasswards from what it should be...but I thought I ‘at least’ had this case figured out.
Care to shed some light on it for me?
I keep hearing stuff like this and something about them being dirty agents. What exactly does this mean? What did they actually do (supposedly) that was so wrong and where is the proof to that effect? All I know is that we seem to be rewarding the drug dealers and punishing the law enforcers. Now...I realize that for the past (what?) fifteen years or so...everything in this world and especially in this country has been backasswards from what it should be...but I thought I ‘at least’ had this case figured out.
Care to shed some light on it for me?
This is a major source of confusion. Compean was the only one of the two agents that picked up his brass. Obviously, the prosecution didn't think the crime scene was important because they never did any forensic analysis of the crime scene nor did they bother to recover any of the brass that was still left at the crime scene.