Posted on 03/23/2009 12:30:01 PM PDT by mnehring
The US Supreme Court will not hear the appeals of US Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. The refusal lets stand the opinion of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirming the convictions and the sentences of the agents.
Although this effectively ends the agents’ hopes to have their felony convictions overturned, they are now free men thanks to a last minute commutation of their 10-year sentences by President Bush. Had it not been for Bush’s action, the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case would likely have meant the agents would have served their full sentences. Nonetheless, since Bush declined to pardon the men, they remain convicted felons.
Is this a vidication of the much-maligned Johnny Sutton (and the trial judge, and the Fifth Circuit justices, all of whom some have suggested were involved, along with the Bush Administration, in some Oliver Stone-like conspiracy) or an indication that SCOTUS is satisfied the men are now free?
Legally speaking, of course, it upholds the government’s case.
Agreed. I don’t enjoy these reductio ad absurdum threads about birth certificates nearly 5 months after the election either.
As you well know from that time, there were news stories that reported things, and people like me who were reading those stories and commenting on what the stories said.
Sometimes I even misread the stories, or didn’t remember them correctly. I don’t think you ever accused me of deliberately lying in order to support Sutton.
As I said before, FR works well as a filter, and as a corrective tool. We read stories, we comment on them, people who read other stories or have more information come and correct things that are wrong.
It’s how we learn.
I will note now that, so far as I can remember, nobody was ever prosecuted for lying under oath to congress. I don’t know if that means it just wasn’t a concern, or if in the end they couldn’t prove the charge.
As I have explained many times, we are all quite removed from the truth, and all we have is what we are told by others. You chose who you will believe, you try to get multiple sources to back things up, you throw things out when they are proven wrong, and you learn.
I can’t to this day say that, for a fact, those words were not spoken by the agents. I don’t believe they were, but I don’t know for a fact that there wasn’t evidence, all I know is that evidence was never publicly reported.
We do have the transcripts of the trial, and if I am remembering correctly, they did not indicate that the charge about the phrase was ever presented at trial.
And if not, my statement from 2007 stands — the suggestion that they spoke harsh words about mexicans would not have a bearing on the question of the jury verdict, because the jury was never presented with the charge.
It’s just so much easier for people to demonize those they disagree with. It’s tiresome, and does nothing to make others think you have a rational argument. So what if a bunch of Freepers think Sutton is the devil? He’s not in jail, and outside the circle of hatred seems to be treated pretty much like real people in a civilized society treat people.
I’ve always had a hard time with the raw hatred and slanderous charges made against people that the accuser has never met, never spoken to, and has no direct evidence of.
(Wow, that wasn’t much of a sentence).
We really need a legal system that knows what we want and gives it to us when we want it ...That following the law stuff is passe
LOL.
That "lackey" description is becoming an even better fit.
I don't hate Johnny Sutton. But I despise him for the lies he told to the Senate, the lies he told on television, and the outrageous method in which he prosecuted these border patrol agents... and others, like Gilmer Hernandez.
If those kind of law enforcement tactics don't scare you, I can only shake my head.
Sutton wasn’t even the woman who prosecuted the case. Sutton wasn’t the two agents who gave false information to congress.
Gilmer — is he the guy who shot an unarmed van that was driving away and actually hit an unarmed woman in the van?
I realise that some people here don’t like the idea that police can’t shoot illegals on sight, but there is a long jump from disagreeing with the no murder of illegals policy to thinking a man who is tasked with carrying out the law is evil.
Johnny Sutton was the one, per his account, that was intimately involved in the plea bargain process, where prosecutors brought a series of ever increasing charges against Ramos and Compean to try to get them to plead guilty, including the totally overreaching "crime of violence" charge that gave them 10 year sentences.
Johnny Sutton was the one that put out propaganda release after propaganda release to try to justify his prosecution.
Johnny Sutton was the one that lied in Senate hearings.
Johnny Sutton was the one that went on TV (with whoever would have him) to reiterate the same lies. pr
Gilmer Hernandez was the Texas deputy sheriff who fired at the vehicle of an alien smuggler that had tried to run him over, accidentally grazing the lip of an occupant. After he was cleared of any wrongdoing by the Texas Rangers and other law enforcement agencies, Sutton, at the urging of the Mexican government, had the case reopened and brought charges of violating the civil rights of the woman based solely on the testimony of the illegal aliens in the vehicle. Two of the occupants sued the county for violating their civil rights.
Why does it not surprise me that you would take the side of the human smuggler and his newly enriched illegal alien occupants?
Why does it not surprise me that you consistently paint border patrol or those on the front line with such hyperbolic language while supporting thugs like Sutton.
Lackey is as lackey does.
************************************************************
The initial investigation by the Texas Rangers and members of the AFT cleared Hernandez of any wrongdoing.[2] However, over a year later, the United States Department of Justice reopened the case under U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton. On December 1, 2006 Hernandez was convicted for violation of civil rights of the injured person on the grounds that he should not have shot at the fleeing vehicle since his life was not in danger. Defense contested that Hernandez did believe that his life was in danger.[2] Hernandez was sentenced to a prison term of 12 months and one day.[3]
************************************************************
The Sheriff fired on the van after it reportedly made an effort to run him down as it escaped his traffic stop. He fired at the tires and the woman who was hurt was, I believe, lying on the floor and hit in the teeth from fragments and not “shot”.
But, again we have a law enforcement officer who passes the muster of his peers and then Johnny Sutton steps in and prosecutes him. Sound familiar. Granted the van didn't run over the Sheriff. If it did, the Sheriff would be dead BUT justified to fire...or would he? Sutton does not condone shooting at those fleeing, whether they are illegals trying to run you over or drug dealers resisting arrest.
We have a war on our Southern border and Johnny Sutton's prosecutions [or those he encourages] have the distinct flavor of favoring the interests of the Mexican gov’t and not the US gov’t.
Sutton also had the President's ear, and I believe it was he, Sutton, who convinced Pres. Bush of the incontrovertible guilt of the agents thus delaying any pardon for them.
I was hoping at some point, the focus would turn from Ramos and Compean, et al, to the despicable tactics of Johnny Sutton. We have people on the Mexican side of the border leaving decapitated heads as warnings, and our border agents are still being prosecuted for defending themselves, let alone us. Of course, the new DHS person is now only waging war against the mistakes of man, or some such PC nonsense, and won't even call the war on terror by a proper name. Interesting that they didn't say the mistakes of man and woman, but that would defame women, eh? 8)
No way! I looked for a nice concise version of the Hernandez incident and couldn't find it -- so I had to go from memory. Thanks for filling in the blanks.
Interesting that they didn't say the mistakes of man and woman, but that would defame women, eh? 8)
Never mess with mother nature, LOL.
Sutton's prosecutions [or those he encourages] have the distinct flavor of favoring the interests of the Mexican gov’t and not the US gov’t and/or the Mexican drug cartels.
That's my version, anyway.
At this rate you and I will both end up in Texas...in solitary confinement!
8)
Facing Chuckie as a prosecutor? ;-)
That would be a criminal accusation you just made. If you have proof, you should send it to the Obama administration, they might prosecute. If you have no proof, you should not state as fact that a person committed a crime without proof.
You are of course free to have your opinion. And if you had some proof, like for example if one of the courts hearing the appeal ruled on a complaint of perjury in the trial, that would be an interesting and educational fact to provide.
Did the defense team complain about perjury in any of their appeals? Did the court rule on the complaint? How did they rule? That type of discussion would be much more productive than simply levelling criminal charges at people.
The plea bargaining process is always one where the prosecuter tries as many charges as possible in order to get the defendants to plead. I don't think any public plea bargaining tale I've heard ever sounds nice.
Johnny Sutton was the one that lied in Senate hearings
Did Sutton appear under oath in a Senate hearing, and lie? If so, that would be a criminal act -- was he charged with a crime, was he prosecuted, how did the judge rule? If not, what proof do you have that he committed perjury?
As you know, if someone tells you something, and you testify that someone told you something, you are not a liar if it turned out what they told you was a lie.
Gilmer Hernandez was the Texas deputy sheriff who fired at the vehicle of an alien smuggler that had tried to run him over
GH is the sheriff who claimed the van tried to run him over, but who when he shot the van hit it in the back from a distance as it was leaving. By the time he shot the van, even his own story indicates it was no longer a threat to him.
Reading his own story, my opinion is that he was next to and behind the driver door and the van pulled out and drove away. The act of pulling away from the curb made the van's side move toward him. He was not in front of the van with the van coming toward him, and he did not shoot the van while it was coming toward him.
We have had more than one intelligent discussion on FR about whether police should ever shoot at fleeing cars, and if so under what conditions.
Why does it not surprise me that you would take the side of the human smuggler and his newly enriched illegal alien occupants?
I can't begin to comprehend what would or would not surprise you. I do know that it is always "fun" on FR when you take the side of a criminal against an LEO who you think went to far in his job. I think we all agree that there IS some line that police cannot cross when dealing with suspects, but we all have differing opinions about where that line is.
There is a group on FR that believes it is fine to shoot, wound, and even kill people who are in the country illegally. I would imagine that if one of their children ever decided to run down to Mexico for some fun, and ended up in prison or dead by the police for being in the country illegally, or for having a joint, the same people would be outraged. But that is speculation on my part.
I do know that when Dog was arrested in Mexico, violating their laws and behaving illegally in order to apprehend a bail-jumping scumbag, there were a lot of people here at FR who insisted that Dog should not have to follow the rules of the country he was in, and that our country should refuse to extradite him.
So in the end I think that how we determine whether we support an LEO in a particular case of alleged abusive behavior seems to depend on circumstance, not some general desire to support a particular prosecutor.
Frankly, I could care less who the prosecutor is in these cases. I want to get the facts, and make an opinion about whether I agree with the actions of government and the LEO. Sometimes I think the LEO acts properly, sometimes I decide they did not.
And in all cases, I imagine that the person involved turns out to be an innocent who reacts badly, to decide if I would feel the same way. In the GH case, at the moment he shot at the car, he did not KNOW there were people hiding in the car who were illegal. He knew a person was fleeing a legal stop (I don't think there was any dispute about his stop being legal).
I just happen to think that, feelings about illegal immigration aside, police should not in general shoot at suspects simply for fleeing the scene.
I would feel differently if the fleeing suspect was a known armed felon.
Why does it not surprise me that you consistently paint border patrol or those on the front line with such hyperbolic language while supporting thugs like Sutton.
I'm not sure what "consistantly" means. So far as I can remember, the only two cases where I have argued against the "conventional FR wisdom" is the R/C case and the Hernandez case. In both of those, I don't think I've used hyberbolic language. I simply haven't seen proof that Sutton is evil or criminal, and I think that in both cases it was not unreasonable that the LEOs were found guilty.
Frankly, if both cases had ended with findings of not guilty, I'd be fine with that as well. I'm defending the choice to prosecute, not claiming that I know the men are guilty or innocent. I've seen hyperbolic language, mostly from the other side, but I'm not arguing for the sake of defending my position here.
In general, I take the side of defending our borders against illegal intrusion. Maybe I'm quick to see bad acts on the good side because such bad acts make it harder for the good agents to do their jobs.
Which is why in the R/C case I always go back to the basics: They were no heroes to the cause. Forget whether they should be found guilty, and just realize that they had multiple agents after a single unarmed man in a van, with one agent armed and located between the unarmed man and the border. The man was transporting drugs.
And when they were done, they couldn't identify the suspect, they filed no complaint about him being armed and dangerous, and in fact other than seizing the drugs failed at their job. If the man had in fact been armed and dangerous, they let him escape so he could act criminally again.
That doesn't mean they are bad agents, and I would have been fine if a jury had decided that acted properly. I'm just not invested in defending at all costs people who appear to have circumvented procedures. I hold LEO to higher standards, because they have the weapons and are sanctioned to use them.
For me, there are two levels of discussion about an issue. You can discuss whether an issue was rightly decided, whether in the end a person really did what they were accused of. Or you can discuss whether there is any merit to that discussion at all.
My position is that there IS merit to the discussion. Some people here claim that there is nothing to be discussed, and that anybody who is of the opposing opinion are evil.
First, I respect the way you approach topics. You try to be fair and base your analysis on facts. I frequently will take what you say to heart, and often when I post, I think “Charles will say the van was driving away” or some such legitimate comment. Of course, I often post my thoughts anyway knowing I may take a few hits.
You incur some criticism because you are so analytical that it treats the topic as one for law school, when many of us are speaking from personal passion or to the higher implications of a given act. Your comment on many of us treating Johnny Sutton as “evil” is probably true. But, Johnny Sutton represents the US government. And when he demands complete candor from some poor border agents who are poorly, in my view, represented and is willing to pervert the gun used in the commission of a crime law to win his case, I think it borders on despicable, if not evil. Bear in mind this same man will not allow an open examination of his office's involvement in the Mexican “House of Death” scandal that involved not just injury but multiple murders.
You correctly point out the van was driving away from the sheriff when he shot. But, is it OK that people can swerve at a police officer and evade any consequence because they were fleeing? Granted, I look more at the morality than at the legality of these situations.
With Ramos and Compean, it was the power of the US coming down on the side of the drug smuggler, when it was clearly a “he said she said” situation. We have a war going on at our borders because people like Sutton were more concerned over the use of excessive force than over defending our borders.
Many have forgotten how the gov’t tried to smear Ramos with stories of spousal abuse and denying that he was selected as agent of the year [later rescinded]. It was a full court press; no wonder the jury sided with the prosecutor. Again, two I believe recanted their guilty verdict after learning more of the facts. More than that, if I recall, regret not understanding the implication of the gun in the commission of a crime law.
For prosecutors to aggressively pursue hardened criminals is one thing. To persecute hapless border agents is quite another.
OK, go back to arguing, sorry discussing, with calcowgirl as she is better at defending my views then I am. 8)
Enjoy the weekend.
I don’t think people should be allowed to act without consequence, but shooting at the van wasn’t the only way to react. The plates were known, and could be called in. The officer could have radioed for backup when he first saw the van, rather than pulling it over when he was alone and in (I believe) his personal car with his wife.
In the end, for R&C in my opinion, all that mattered was: Did they shoot at the man, and was the man unarmed at the time. The first is accepted by most everybody, the 2nd I think I can rationally establish without relying on the testimony of the drug dealer. Beyond that, the question is what punishment is appropriate for shooting at an unarmed man, and in this case I thought 10 years was way too long, and I’m glad they commuted the sentences.
Anyone who is still willing to give the smuggler the benefit of the doubt needs to get their head examined. He lied to investigators, he lied again on the stand, -all the while exploiting his immunity to help the cartels smuggle more drugs into the country.
I'll say it again : if he had to do it over again, no way in hell does Sutton sign that immunity agreement with Aldrete-Davila.
Congressman Rohrabacher has found out, via the FOIA, that the DoJ issued two passes allowing the smuggler unaccompanied access in and out of the country, after the DEA contacted the DoJ to inform them that Aldrete-Davila had been implicated in a second major drug transport.
Contrast this with the fact that Sutton's reps argued against delaying the incarceration of the agents just so they could spend the holidays with their families ( before spending the next 11 to 12 years in prison ).
As to the specific incident with Ramos and Compean, I still argue it should have been split. Ramos hears 14 shots being fired comes up over the canal and fires at the fleeing illegal. His perception is colored by what he hears.
But, the one statement you made: “the 2nd [was the man unarmed] I think I can rationally establish without relying on the testimony of the drug dealer.” would be totally sliced and diced by a GOOD defense attorney. There is no doubt a difference between being armed and displaying a weapon, which I will leave for others to argue. But, I did read an account [for which I don't have a citation], that a friend or acquaintance said Aldrete would never make a run without his gun. So again, I feel that no one but Aldrete can answer the question as to whether he was armed or brandished a weapon. My guess, based on his history is he was armed, but did not use his weapon. However, I still don't blame the Agents for firing.
This week in Charlotte, NC, we remembered two police officers executed as they conversed with a suspicious teen who turned out to be armed.
I thought it was just Charles and me at this point, everyone else having moved on.
Nice to have company. [Especially someone who thinks Sutton was way too aggressive.]
I'm sorry, but that's exactly what what can do. That's a phrase that is overused because it sounds smart, but is actually vacuous. All we ever do is 2nd-guess from the comfort of our homes what other people do. And that's what the criminal justice system is all about -- ordinary people judging after-the-fact what others have done.
But, the one statement you made: “the 2nd [was the man unarmed] I think I can rationally establish without relying on the testimony of the drug dealer.” would be totally sliced and diced by a GOOD defense attorney.
There is no evidence that there was a gun. And the actions of the agent on the day of the shooting were entirely inconsistant with there being a gun. And they never reported a gun, and they never told any other officers about the gun.
They only mentioned the gun when they were questioned about the shooting, when they were suspects and needed an excuse for shooting.
My guess, based on his history is he was armed, but did not use his weapon.
And what history is that? The history of all the times he was apprehended by the police, never with a weapon? His history of running away from police and not firing back when fired upon? The history that shows no evidence that he bought a weapon?
(lest you get confused, I'm not really saying he was aprehended a lot of times by police, I'm making the point that real evidence and history deals with actually catching the guy with or using a weapon, or purchasing a weapon, or credible witnesses under oath saying they saw him with a weapon, not the "friend or aquantance" saying something off the cuff.
It makes perfectly good sense that a lone man driving a load of pot would NOT have a gun, because it would make a simple transportation charge turn into a serious felony, without providing any real protection if a group of armed men decided to take the shipment.
Note that they did not find any evidence of a weapon in the truck, but they found his cell phone, indicating that he didn't really take time to pull stuff out of his van when he ran.
If there was any physical evidence that he had a weapon, it would have been presented at the trial. All that we got was the self-serving testimony of the two agents that they thought they saw a gun in his hand. Which obviously they would say if they really thought they saw a weapon, but also is what they would say if they shot an unarmed man, decided they better not say anything about it, decided it would be best if the whole thing was forgotten, and then later had to make up a reason for the shooting.
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.