After the smuggler escaped into Mexico, R & C, were walking back up to the rest of the group and Ramos specifically heard them discussing the "gunshots" with the supervisor. Ramos assumed that the supervisor had been informed that the guns had been discharged. That may not have been the correct assumption, but under the circumstances, I can see how that assumption could have been made.
My take is that the supervisor was made aware that the guns being fired by at least one other agent at the scene. But since the smuggler escaped back into Mexico, he figured that they wouldn't be seeing him again, so why write out all that paperwork and process it...?
Also, they should have never been charged under the 924-c law. There already actions being taken in Congress to have L.E. explicitly exempted from statute. Unfortunately, there a some overzealous prosecutors out there with axes to grind.
Ramos assumed that a supervisor had been informed that he fired his weapon? How effed-up is that?
As the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals noted, law enforcement officers had been prosecuted under 924c in that jurisdiction a number of times before. And it's nice to see that Congress is on the ball. /sarc
The Department regulation merely stipulates that an agent at the scene inform the supervisor that a sidearm(s) has been discharged within in an hour of the incident. And, no, it does not have to be the agent that fired the gun.
Isn’t that the charges [tampering with evidence, etc] which the 5th Circuit threw out and reorder sentencing?