# Who would want to be a border patrol agent?



## KMAN (Dec 23, 2008)

The Ramos and Compean treatment is just unbelievable...  hopefully Bush will pardon them before he leaves office...


Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents quivering
Mexican drug smugglers spray bullets, but U.S. officers dare not return fire


Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents quivering


----------



## geonerd20 (Dec 25, 2008)

This is a terrible case!  I cannot believe that Bush did not pardon these two Border Patrol agents.  Hopefully, Obama will do something about it.  This is a complete outrage!


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

i think they should at least have the sentence commuted
not sure if i would go for a total pardone, they did lie and file false reports


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 25, 2008)

the did lie and cover it up...why should they be held to any different standards of any other citizens?  are we gonna start having two or three sets of rules depending on your job etc?   everyone wants to make heros of these guys..well they are not heros....

why arent they viewed like anyone else...do the crime...serve the time....


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 25, 2008)

KMAN said:


> The Ramos and Compean treatment is just unbelievable...  hopefully Bush will pardon them before he leaves office...
> 
> 
> Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents quivering
> ...



I'm sure the border patrol agent that was childhood friends with the drug dealer and acted as a go between for the prosecuter likes his job.  Course you have to wonder how many times he's let his friend across the border with his drugs.  

I'm guessing right now that only a crook would want to be a border patrol agent.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 25, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> i think they should at least have the sentence commuted
> not sure if i would go for a total pardone, they did lie and file false reports



They didn't file ANY report, therefore no lies or false report.  Their supervisor was on the scene and said not to file a report and then testified against them in court and of course, got a promotion.  The whole thing shows just how bad our government has become.  We ARE Mexico.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> the did lie and cover it up...why should they be held to any different standards of any other citizens?  are we gonna start having two or three sets of rules depending on your job etc?   everyone wants to make heros of these guys..well they are not heros....
> 
> why arent they viewed like anyone else...do the crime...serve the time....



They didn't go to jail for lying or filing a false report.  They went to jail for discharging their firearms during the commision of a crime.  Do you really think all our cops should be able to be charged with that???  They weren't even the ones committing a crime.


----------



## strollingbones (Dec 25, 2008)

Compean receiving a 12-year sentence and Ramos an 11-year sentence after they were convicted of assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations against a drug dealer who was retreating across the border.

Ramos-Compean

it is hard to call it self defense when they shot the guy in the ass...


----------



## DiveCon (Dec 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> Compean receiving a 12-year sentence and Ramos an 11-year sentence after they were convicted of assault, obstruction of justice and civil rights violations against a drug dealer who was retreating across the border.
> 
> Ramos-Compean
> 
> it is hard to call it self defense when they shot the guy in the ass...


i dont know, shooting a drug dealer in the ass sounds like justice to me


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 25, 2008)

I have a couple of issues with the story itself. 



> A team of Mexican drug smugglers unloaded $1 million worth of drugs across the U.S. border, I assume this is a transfer from Mexico to the USA in full view of US Authorities? I mean, really, how stupid is that? spraying bullets at U.S. Border Patrol agents with automatic weapons, but the agents dared not return fire  as one official said they fear losing their jobs or ending up behind bars like agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. I could care less what they fear. When shot at you shoot back. They shuld be prosecuted for dereliction of duty.
> 
> Ramos and Compean are serving 11- and 12-year prison sentences, respectively, for shooting an illegal alien drug dealer while he smuggled nearly 750 pounds of marijuana across the border. They were convicted of assault, discharge of a weapon in the commission of a crime of violence and deprivation of civil rights. Self serving appeal to the masses numero uno
> 
> ...



This thing reeks with incompetence and cowardice at the local level. It further reeks with incompetence in the chain of command for not conducting the required training to instill a physical aggressiveness needed to overcome the smugglers. It reeks of political cowardice since we are apparently afraid of pissing off Mexico.

Campean y Ramos is not relevant. They are a separate case and are now being used as a political rallying cry by one group and as an excuse for not doing their jobs by another.


----------



## PatBuchanan (Dec 25, 2008)

I'd do the job, so long as I wouldn't be thrown in jail for dusting some wet-back.


----------



## Kenny (Dec 25, 2008)

Dude, terrible source. 

World*Nut*Daily = Lies & Propaganda (counterpart of North Korea State Media)

The fact is, Ramos and Compean shot an unarmed illegal immigrant in the ass while he was running back across the border. The two incidents are obviously different, that is if the shooting incident that is cited by World*Nut*Daily is even true. In the incident they cited, the illegal immigrants were armed. In the incident with Ramos and Compean, the immigrants and unarmed and actually fleeing back to their country.

Even police in the United States are not allowed to shoot an unarmed drug dealer running away.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Dec 25, 2008)

KMAN said:


> The Ramos and Compean treatment is just unbelievable...  hopefully Bush will pardon them before he leaves office...
> 
> 
> Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents quivering
> ...


Ramos and Compean got what they deserved, as I see it.  I believe that some of us who are pissed off at the illegal immigrants and their effects on our way of life are using this case as a facade to show that they are not racist due to the fact that these guys are hispanic as well.  However, the facts of the case would lead you to understand that they were not wrongfully convicted.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 25, 2008)

Kenny said:


> Dude, terrible source.
> 
> World*Nut*Daily = Lies & Propaganda (counterpart of North Korea State Media)
> 
> ...




Right...you believe an illegal drug dealer didn't have a weapon????  What the heck is the matter with you?  He had nearly 800 pounds of marrijuana, of course he had a weapon.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 25, 2008)

Kenny said:


> Dude, terrible source.
> 
> World*Nut*Daily = Lies & Propaganda (counterpart of North Korea State Media)
> 
> ...



If you read the testimony, you will see that the doctor for the prosecuty says that the bullet entered and exited him in a manner consistant with someone turning around, *as if to point something behind him*.  Only an idiot would think a man responsible for 800 pounds of marijauna didn't have a weapon on him.


----------



## FistyTheBadger (Dec 25, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> Right...you believe an illegal drug dealer didn't have a weapon????  What the heck is the matter with you?  He had nearly 800 pounds of marrijuana, of course he had a weapon.


Is this what is considered a "red herring"?  My thinking is that regardless of whether or not he had a gun, what happened did not precipitate him using it in an initiatory manner, and there is no justification for shooting somebody in the ass just on  the suspicion (or even sight) of a gun.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Dec 25, 2008)

Kenny said:


> Dude, terrible source.
> 
> World*Nut*Daily = Lies & Propaganda (counterpart of North Korea State Media)
> 
> ...



Wrong as usual the guy was a confessed drug smuggler that fired at them and then fled. But hey if it helps YOU sleep at night knowing our law enforcement can be arrested and thrown in prison for doing their job, I suggest you never complain when crime happens to YOU.


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 25, 2008)

FistyTheBadger said:


> Is this what is considered a "red herring"?  My thinking is that regardless of whether or not he had a gun, what happened did not precipitate him using it in an initiatory manner, and there is no justification for shooting somebody in the ass just on  the suspicion (or even sight) of a gun.



If I am law enforcement or military and the enemy is armed (or even sight to use your words) he becomes the next slab on the coroners table.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> the did lie and cover it up...why should they be held to any different standards of any other citizens?  are we gonna start having two or three sets of rules depending on your job etc?   everyone wants to make heros of these guys..well they are not heros....
> 
> why arent they viewed like anyone else...do the crime...serve the time....



You mean the same standard William Ayers was held to?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 25, 2008)

We need Border Patrol Agents just to keep the vigilantes in line.  Ramos and Compean will be released after serving their earned sentences.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> We need Border Patrol Agents just to keep the vigilantes in line.  Ramos and Compean will be released after serving their earned sentences.




We need Border Patrol agents to keep illegal immigrants out of our country -- to protect and defend our border.  

If they were allowed to do their job, there wouldn't be any vigilantes.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 25, 2008)

Border Patrol Agents are allowed to do their jobs.  They're _not_ allowed to break the law themselves.

Vigilantes get in the way.


----------



## Gunny (Dec 25, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Border Patrol Agents are allowed to do their jobs.  They're _not_ allowed to break the law themselves.
> 
> Vigilantes get in the way.



Border Patrol Agents aren't allowed to do their jobs.  Not without having to second-guess whether or not they will be crucified for doing it.

What vigilantes?  Not sure exactly who you are talking about.  Vigilantes would be the responsibility of state and locval law enforcement, not Federal Border Patrol agents.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

FistyTheBadger said:


> Ramos and Compean got what they deserved, as I see it.  I believe that some of us who are pissed off at the illegal immigrants and their effects on our way of life are using this case as a facade to show that they are not racist due to the fact that these guys are hispanic as well.  However, the facts of the case would lead you to understand that they were not wrongfully convicted.






well, I'm not so sure about that. I've seen too many interviews in which other border patrol agents including the management say their misconduct should have been handled internally. However, this smacks of another case of we will hold Americans to one standard and illegals another. Our border patrol agents are in jail for shooting someone in the ass, but the judges let the drug dealers loose every day. It was an illegal convicted drug smuggler that had been turned loose in San Francisco who took out his AK-47 and shot a man and his two sons over road rage.Massacred on the main streets of America by a convicted drug felon who should not have been here in the first place. What did the mayor of the Sanctuary shit city of San Fran have to say to the poor woman left without husband or son's? Nada.  Now, don't talk to me about justice. Free the border patrol agents they've been in jail too long already.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Border Patrol Agents aren't allowed to do their jobs.  Not without having to second-guess whether or not they will be crucified for doing it.
> 
> What vigilantes?  Not sure exactly who you are talking about.  Vigilantes would be the responsibility of state and locval law enforcement, not Federal Border Patrol agents.






Exactly. I wish "The Lone Survivor" was required reading for every armchair quarterback who thinks they are an American.


----------



## sparky (Dec 26, 2008)

who would want to be boder patrol?  well have you seen these fella's? dunno about the Mexican side, but the Canadian side seems like a fairly shluffy job to me....

and if the economy gets to the point where the only job i can get is a BP one to feed the fam, what do you think i'd do....?


----------



## Lycurgus (Dec 26, 2008)

KMAN said:


> The Ramos and Compean treatment is just unbelievable...  hopefully Bush will pardon them before he leaves office...
> 
> 
> Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents quivering
> ...




*Under those terms of engagement I wouldn't be employed very long. *


----------



## indago (Dec 26, 2008)

> Ramos-Compean treatment has border agents quivering
> 
> Mexican drug smugglers spray bullets, but U.S. officers dare not return fire



That's a lesson for Americans...

*DON'T FUCK WITH THE GOVERNMENT OPEN BORDERS POLICY*


----------



## RoadVirus (Dec 26, 2008)

geonerd20 said:


> This is a terrible case!  I cannot believe that Bush did not pardon these two Border Patrol agents.  Hopefully, Obama will do something about it.


I can believe it. He doesn't want to upset our Masters in Mexico.


----------



## Neubarth (Dec 26, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> They didn't file ANY report, therefore no lies or false report.  Their supervisor was on the scene and said not to file a report and then testified against them in court and of course, got a promotion.  The whole thing shows just how bad our government has become.  We ARE Mexico.


 We have a long way to fall before we can be compared to Mexicio.  There the bribe is standard.  Here, the vast majority of our cops will not accept a bribe. We still have some quality to our moral standards, but we do appear to be on our way down.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

Neubarth said:


> We have a long way to fall before we can be compared to Mexicio.  There the bribe is standard.  Here, the vast majority of our cops will not accept a bribe. We still have some quality to our moral standards, but we do appear to be on our way down.





 something tells me we are already there. Chicargo is moving to Washington. innit?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Wrong as usual the guy was a confessed drug smuggler that fired at them and then fled. But hey if it helps YOU sleep at night knowing our law enforcement can be arrested and thrown in prison for doing their job, I suggest you never complain when crime happens to YOU.



I read the trial transcripts.  These BP agents screwed up, which is regrettable.  Had they behaved correctly, the smuggler would be in prison and they would be doing their jobs.

Just goes to show you that LE has to obey the law too.

The court ruled correctly.  All appeals are exhausted.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> I read the trial transcripts.  These BP agents screwed up, which is regrettable.  Had they behaved correctly, the smuggler would be in prison and they would be doing their jobs.
> 
> Just goes to show you that LE has to obey the law too.
> 
> The court ruled correctly.  All appeals are exhausted.



I read the transcripts too.  He pointed a gun at them, they shot at him.  That's what they said and I believe them, especially given the doctor's testimony which stated that the bullets entry and exit was consitant with someone who was turning around as if to point something behind him.  

I know that someone with 800 pounds of marijuana is gonna have a gun with him and given his lies under oath, I believe the border patrol agents testimony long before I would believe a repeated drug smuggler.

I guess it all depends on who you believe.  The supervisor who got a promotion for lying under oath, or the border patrol agents themselves.  The patrol officer who was childhood friends with the smuggler and wasn't even there, or the border patrol agents themselves.

The prosecutor, who made a deal with a repeat drug smuggler and prevented the smuggler,s repeat crimes from being revealed in court, or the border patrol agents themselves.

You believe who you want, I have too many friends and relatives in law enforcement not to beleive the border patrol agents.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> I read the transcripts too.  He pointed a gun at them, they shot at him.  That's what they said and I believe them, especially given the doctor's testimony which stated that the bullets entry and exit was consitant with someone who was turning around as if to point something behind him.
> 
> I know that someone with 800 pounds of marijuana is gonna have a gun with him and given his lies under oath, I believe the border patrol agents testimony long before I would believe a repeated drug smuggler.
> 
> ...



The jury listened to ALL the testimony.  They didn't believe the border patrol agents testimony and neither do I.

I'm sure you have very nice LE friends.  I hope your friends don't file false reports, and cover up their misdeeds like Ramos and Compean did.


----------



## WillowTree (Dec 26, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> I read the transcripts too.  He pointed a gun at them, they shot at him.  That's what they said and I believe them, especially given the doctor's testimony which stated that the bullets entry and exit was consitant with someone who was turning around as if to point something behind him.
> 
> I know that someone with 800 pounds of marijuana is gonna have a gun with him and given his lies under oath, I believe the border patrol agents testimony long before I would believe a repeated drug smuggler.
> 
> ...





That's the hallmark of the leftwingers. They always believe the other guys and blame America first.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Dec 26, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> I read the transcripts too.  He pointed a gun at them, they shot at him.  That's what they said and I believe them, especially given the doctor's testimony which stated that the bullets entry and exit was consitant with someone who was turning around as if to point something behind him.
> 
> I know that someone with 800 pounds of marijuana is gonna have a gun with him and given his lies under oath, I believe the border patrol agents testimony long before I would believe a repeated drug smuggler.
> 
> ...



This is a tragedy and I am disappointed that Bush hadn't pardoned them.  I'm beginning to think that he is just part of the good ole boy network.


----------



## indago (Dec 26, 2008)

*CNN  LOU DOBBS TONIGHT  Aired August 16, 2006 - 18:00 ET*

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: There is, according to many who have taken a look at the case of the two U.S. Border Patrol agents prosecuted and convicted in El Paso, Texas by the U.S. attorney there, a case in which the drug smuggler who was apprehended was given complete immunity to testify against them. 

There is further evidence of great irregularities in this case, adding just more questions to a case that is confounding and frustrating to just about everyone who looks at the facts. 

Our Casey Wian is in El Paso, Texas tonight. He talked with one of the jurors in the case. Her first interview on television. Casey Wian reports. 

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): She was the last holdout on the jury that convicted Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean of violating a Mexican drug smuggler's civil rights, assault and obstruction of justice. She doesn't want us to show her face or use her name, but she does want the public to know she doesn't believe they're guilty as charged. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I remember being in the jury room, talking with the other jury members, crying. I remember when the verdict was read. I felt like I was going to go through the floor. 

WIAN: Why were you crying?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I think because I felt like I had made a decision and it was probably a wrong decision, but I had to make a decision. 

WIAN (voice-over): Agents Ramos and Compean also had decisions to make during their pursuit of a Mexican drug smuggler driving a van loaded with nearly 800 pounds of marijuana. The smuggler got out of the vehicle, ignored the agent's orders to stop, and they thought he had a gun, so they fired. One shot hit the smuggler in the buttocks. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: I believe them. I believe that they felt danger at the time, and that they had a split second decision to make and they felt their lives were in danger. And they felt that they had to do what they had to do. 

WIAN: The juror said she felt pressured to change her vote to guilty because of an early agreement the jury made to reach a verdict no matter what. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We had been there two weeks, felt like there was a lot of time invested into the trial, and it was going to be my fault if there was a mistrial or a hung jury. 

WIAN: Compean's attorney and independent legal experts say that's not likely to result in a successful appeal based on jury misconduct. The juror says she would have stood her ground had she known the agents faced 20 years in prison. 

(on camera): Does this verdict still bother you today? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: It does bother me. And I know now is  I haven't been able to speak about it before. I have nightmares about it. I think about their kids, their families, their wives, what they're going through, and it's just devastating. 

WIAN: The juror says the worst thing she could have done was to give in to the other jurors. She's offering support to the Border Patrol agents saying she'll do anything she can to help them stay out of prison. 

Casey Wian, CNN, El Paso, Texas. 

(END VIDEOTAPE)

WIAN: T.J. Bonner is the president of the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing border patrolmen, joining us tonight from Houston, Texas. T.J., this case is  how would you characterize it? 

T.J. BONNER, NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL: This is a travesty, Lou. This case, as you noted, has so many irregularities, any of which standing by themselves call for an independent investigation. But when you put them together, you wonder how in the world the U.S. attorney could have went forward with the case. 

DOBBS: Well, the U.S. attorney not only went forward with the case, T.J., the assistant U.S. attorney in the case, the prosecutor, actually said that  words to the effect that she thought, at one point, it is more important to prosecute law enforcement than it is drug smugglers and criminals. I mean, I don't know what we're dealing with here. 

BONNER: Right, not once but twice. First time 750 pounds of marijuana smuggled across, amnesty or immunity  I'm sorry. The second time, 10 months later, another 1,000 pounds, and they  just to get the testimony of this drug smuggler, they let him off the hook for smuggling nearly a ton of marijuana into the United States? What's wrong with this U.S. Attorney's Office? 

DOBBS: Well, what's wrong with the U.S. attorney's office? I've got to ask you what in the world is wrong with the U.S. Border Patrol? The head of the Border Patrol should be all over this. I mean, I cannot understand their reticence. 

It looks  Congressman Poe said straightforwardly he thinks somebody is paying off the government of Mexico here. And he's talking about Washington, D.C. You start with Alberto Gonzalez at the U.S. Attorney's Office, President Bush. I mean, these are serious charges, and it smells to high heaven. 

BONNER: And when you see this lack of support coming from the top, it's no wonder that morale is in the toilet, Lou. 

DOBBS: Morale is in the toilet? 

BONNER: Yes. I've been in for 28 years, Lou. This is the worst I've ever seen it. Agents are now afraid to go out and do their job. They're wondering, am I going to be prosecuted next? 

DOBBS: We had a number of people write into this broadcast with the announcement of the Arellano-Felix arrest, the Tijuana cartel  one of the cartel leaders today by the Coast Guard, suggesting that the Coast Guardsmen be very, very careful for fear somebody will make a deal with the government of Mexico and with a deal this size, they're saying the Coast Guardsman could face capital punishment. 

Why in the world did this case get this far? What is your union going to do? Why isn't there more of a show of support from your members and for other Border Patrol officers? And why isn't this Border Patrol officer who was involved with this drug dealer being questioned rather critically here? 

BONNER: Very interesting questions, Lou. As to why this Border Patrol agent who was in cahoots with his childhood friend drug smuggler, why he's not being investigated? You'd have to ask the Department of Justice and the Office of Inspector General. Likewise, you need to ask them the hard questions about why this case went forward in first place. 

DOBBS: Oh, I already have. 

BONNER: I know. They put out a three-page statement, and now they're hiding behind that. But when you read that statement, it's all based upon the smuggler's lies. The smuggler claims he didn't have a gun. Well, of course, he's going to claim he didn't have a gun. 

DOBBS: Let me ask you this. You've been checking into this. You have got some information in terms of the drug cartel working across the border from El Paso and, frankly, on this side of the border as well. Quickly tell us what you think is going on? 

BONNER: Well, I'm not sure what's going  I can tell you the facts, Lou. And the facts are that these agents acted properly. They reported the shooting verbally to their supervisors. They did everything by the book, and they end up in front of a jury and they're convicted by an overzealous assistant U.S. attorney. 

DOBBS: You've been told as well, have you not, that this drug smuggler, in point of fact, had been rumored to be going after the agents, Compean and Ramos? 

BONNER: Yes, that's what I've been told, that he was going after them. 

DOBBS: What is your best judgment about the influence and the strength and the power of the drug cartel  the Mexican drug cartel on the community itself in El Paso? 

BONNER: Well, it's not just El Paso. 

DOBBS: I understand, but El Paso is where the jury was and lives and it's where this case is. What's your sense of that? 

BONNER: The cartels have such a tremendous reach into almost every border community, Lou. There's so much money, you can't even begin to fathom it. And, you know, they're clearly involved in this. 

DOBBS: These families have been ruined just paying their legal expenses. The Border Patrol, we put up on our Web site places where they can send their money to help. Anyone concerned about these men and their families can send money. Is the Border Patrol Council, is your union, going to take care of these people? 

BONNER: We are. We have set up the fund, Lou. The response from the public has been overwhelming. Today alone 350 letters of support with very generous donations, about $15,000 came in just today. People out there  and it's a shame because our tax dollars were used to prosecute these poor agents. 

DOBBS: Right. T.J., there's a lot here, but I think a lot of people need to hear that you and the union that you lead are going to back these men up because they have been forsaken by a lot of people who should be supporting them with all of their strength. It is good to know you are, and that they're fighting back. 

BONNER: We are backing these two fine agents to the hilt, Lou. We're not going to back down from this. We're going to ensure as long as we have any funds at all, that they do not go to prison. No matter what the bond is, we'll post that bond, keep them out of prison, fight on appeal and restore their good names. 

DOBBS: T.J. Bonner, we thank you for being here. And go to LouDobbs.com for information on if you want to support these men and their families and their legal defense. The addresses and where you can send that money if you want to help is there. It's LouDobbs.com. T.J. Bonner, thank you.


----------



## indago (Dec 26, 2008)

*CNN  LOU DOBBS TONIGHT  Aired January 12, 2007 - 18:00 ET*

LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean are still awaiting word tonight on their request to remain free on bond, appealing 11 and 12-year sentences for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler at the border. The drug smuggler was given immunity by the Justice Department to testify against those agents. Casey Wian now has the latest on thing agents who are scheduled to begin serving their sentences next Wednesday  Casey. 

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Lou, family members, attorneys and the agents themselves all expected a ruling today. Federal judge Kathleen Cardone (ph) is considering whether to allow the former Border Patrol agents Jose Compean and Ignacio Ramos to remain free on bond while their convictions on assault with a deadly weapon, civil rights violations and other charges are appealed. 

As we reported and as you mentioned, the Mexican drug smuggler who was wounded in the incident was given immunity from prosecution by the federal government, sparking outrage from border security activists. 

Now, the judge has already determined that the agents are not a danger to the community, and not a flight risk. That's why she allowed them to remain free since their conviction in October. But in deciding whether they can stay free pending their coming appeal, she may also consider the substance of that appeal and its chances of success. 

Also at issue, a law that anyone convicted of a federal gun crime must go to prison unless there are exceptional circumstances. Lawyers for the agents say the fact that dozens of U.S. congressmen and hundreds of thousands of American citizens have signed petitions demanding a presidential pardon for the agents are clearly exceptional. 

Now, if Judge Cardone denies the motion, agents Ramos and Compean must report to prison to begin their 11 and 12-year sentences on Wednesday.

And Lou, I just got off the phone with former Border Patrol agent Ignacio Ramos, and he said he understands that Judge Kathleen Cardone's office have received lots of phone calls from supporters of the agents. And the agents very much appreciate that supports. But he also says he hear that some of those phone calls have been threatening, and we understand that the U.S. Marshal Service is actually involved in looking into some of those threatening phone calls.

So, the agents ask that anyone calling in their support please refrain from any type of threatening behavior. Obviously not helpful to their cause  Lou. 

DOBBS: Threatening not helpful to anyone's cause, and certainly the marshal's office should deal straightforwardly with those people who would do such a thing. 

Let's turn to a couple of things, though. 

One, because as we talk about this drug smuggler that was given immunity by Johnny Sutton's attorney  the attorney general, his office, he subsequently committed a crime, did he not, after being given immunity? WIAN: He sure did. Our sources tell us that this drug smuggler was caught smuggling an even bigger load, somewhere near 1,000 pounds of marijuana, subsequent to this first load that agents Ramos and Compean uncovered. And he was granted immunity for that offense as well. He's also suing the U.S. government for $5 million. 

DOBBS: And at the same time, at least three jurors feel that they were coerced into their  into their verdicts. 

WIAN: Absolutely. There was a filing of a claim for jury misconduct before the convictions were handed down. That claim was denied. 

The basic substance of that was that these jurors claim that the jury foreman said that their  that a hung jury would be unacceptable to this judge and that they had to reach some sort of a verdict. These jurors had questions. They didn't want to convict. But they feet that they had to, and they now feel that they did the wrong thing  Lou. 

DOBBS: And to  to put it exactly where we are, more than 50 U.S. congressmen have written the president, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, without response from those gentlemen. Most of those  those petitioning congressmen are Republicans. The Republican executive branch not responding at all. 

Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, basically scoffing at the idea of a pardon for these gentlemen. I happen to agree with him on one level. 

I think what should happen here, Casey, is there should be a full investigation of the U.S. Attorney's Office. There should be a full investigation of this case, a full investigation of the court proceedings in that federal court. And meanwhile, they should be holding in suspension any action against these two agents.

Casey, thank you very much.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

Lou Dobbs, yeah.  LOL.


----------



## indago (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Lou Dobbs, yeah.  LOL.



...and Casey Wian, CNN Correspondent; T. J. Bonner, National Border Patrol Council; and one of the jurors from the trial...

...still LOL?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 26, 2008)

indago said:


> ...and Casey Wian, CNN Correspondent; T. J. Bonner, National Border Patrol Council; and one of the jurors from the trial...
> 
> ...still LOL?




Ramos and Compean are still in prison.  No pardon is coming.  Sorry about that.  Those two should have done their jobs right and put the smuggler away.

LE has to abide by the law.  That's why it's called LAW enforcement.  Ramos and Compean broke the law, were tried and convicted.   Appeal was not strong enough.

Dobbs is all immigration all the time.  If he wants to try the case again in the media he can knock himself out.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 26, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Ramos and Compean are still in prison.  No pardon is coming.  Sorry about that.  Those two should have done their jobs right and put the smuggler away.
> 
> LE has to abide by the law.  That's why it's called LAW enforcement.  Ramos and Compean broke the law, were tried and convicted.   Appeal was not strong enough.
> 
> Dobbs is all immigration all the time.  If he wants to try the case again in the media he can knock himself out.



Sky, I don't believe you are stupid so I can only conclude that you are so stuck in your ways that you refuse to accept any truth that doesn't abide by your beliefs.  Read the transcripts again.  Why do you disbelieve the doctor's testimony in favor of the smuggler's testimony?  We KNOW the smuggler is a liar, any intelligent person KNOWS he had a gun even though he LIED in court and said he didn't.  The doctor's testimony is backed up by physical evidence, how can you dismiss it?


----------



## indago (Dec 27, 2008)

This case of Ramos and Compean, and its juror tampering/coercion, is reminding me more and more of the case of Darlene Span:

Darlene Span related that two federal marshals came to her home while she was having a yard sale. They had no uniform. She described their attire as "wrinkled up shabby street wear." They wore cowboy boots, and had no badges to indicate that they were government personnel. She said that "they were sweaty, they were rude, and they were cocky." They showed her a picture of a man that was wanted by the federal government, and named the man. They were looking for a Mickey Michael, whose name was similar to the name of Darlene's brother, who was Mike Michael. She said "The person they were looking for lived in Indiana, and we lived in Phoenix all our life." She also noted that there was about a twenty-five year difference in their ages. She explained that she, and her brother Jerry, who was helping with the yard sale, tried to be helpful with the marshals, attempting to explain the discrepancies in the descriptions of the two men. The man that they were looking for had "jumped bail" on a robbery charge twelve years earlier. She said that the marshals then went "out of control", and demanded that she would have to get her brother there, right now, or she "would be sorry." She then demanded that the marshals leave the property. They would not leave. The marshals then began to manhandle Darlene and her brother Jerry, handcuffing them. Her Mother, who was also helping with the yard sale, picked up a camera and started taking photos of the scene. The marshals manhandled the woman and took her film from her. Darlene and her brother, Jerry, were taken to a local jail and were incarcerated for three days. They were later released. A year and eight months later, charges were brought against them of resisting and obstructing the officers in the performance of their duty. The government had suppressed the testimony of some of the witnesses present at the yard sale before the Grand Jury relating to these charges. Darlene and her brother found five other federal marshals who would testify at the trial that the two marshals, David A. Danes, and Gary T. Grotewald, were under internal affairs investigation for their behavior in other incidents. A marshal, Thomas Lopez, had written a letter to the federal prosecutor in this case, Ivan Mathew, relating his "personal knowledge" that the two marshals "have a reputation for provoking assault." The prosecutor took Darlene and her brother into a room and told them that if they put the testimony of these marshals into evidence, charges would be filed against other of their family members. One marshal who went to the prosecutor and was willing to testify against Dane and Grotewald was told that he "better go home and think twice before he lets anybody know that Grotewald and Danes beat up the Span family."

Darlene learned from some of the jurors, who waited for them after the trial to talk with them, that during the trial, they realized that the testimony of David Danes, and Gary Grotewald, "was rehearsed", and that they believed the testimony of witnesses, who were present at the garage sale during the incident, and that Darlene and her brother were innocent of the charges brought against them. They felt intimidated by the prosecutor, and the judge, Robert C. Broomfield, of the federal District Court, one declaring that she felt that she would be put in jail if she did not write "guilty" on the paper. The jurors, some in tears, believing that Darlene Span and her brother were innocent of the charges, declared them guilty. Darlene explained that some of the jurors called, even months later, saying that they were ill over having to find her guilty, knowing that she was innocent. One juror, Sally Osborne, speaking on a radio talk show of the incident, declared that the Span family had been "victimized".

Yes, Darlene Span was victimized. She was victimized by the jury. They broke the faith with one of the most portentous of the laws of God:

*You shall not pervert justice, either by favouring the poor or by subservience to the great. You shall judge your fellow countryman with strict justice.*  Leviticus 19 v 15

Alan Dershowitz, a professor from the Harvard University, took up the appeal for Darlene Span and her brother, finding over twenty appealable issues for review by the federal Court of Appeals; but even he could not undo the damage that the jury had done. The appeal failed to exonerate the Span family. Darlene and her family have lost their home because of the expenses of their ordeal with the Federales.

Doing what is right is a matter of character. The jury knew very well the right thing to do and didn't do it.  But, that's what happens when you have a toady people, and a government on the take.

STORY1

STORY2

STORY3

STORY4


----------



## KMAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Kenny said:


> Dude, terrible source.
> 
> World*Nut*Daily = Lies & Propaganda (counterpart of North Korea State Media)
> 
> ...



You can't disprove the source so you tear it down...  in typical liberal fashion to....give me a break


----------



## KMAN (Dec 27, 2008)

You have people like strollingbones who don't know the whole story so of course they don't see a problem with them being in jail...  All I ask is that people read the whole story before commenting.

Bottom line...   If you are crossing our borders illegally, smuggling drugs, and you run from law enforcement you deserve to be shot...


----------



## KMAN (Dec 27, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> Sky, I don't believe you are stupid so I can only conclude that you are so stuck in your ways that you refuse to accept any truth that doesn't abide by your beliefs.  Read the transcripts again.  Why do you disbelieve the doctor's testimony in favor of the smuggler's testimony?  We KNOW the smuggler is a liar, any intelligent person KNOWS he had a gun even though he LIED in court and said he didn't.  The doctor's testimony is backed up by physical evidence, how can you dismiss it?




It's impossible talking to some of these people like sky who don't understand the case.

I think you will find that the people on this board who defen the smugglers are either illegal immigrants, liberals, or hate the US...  That's the only excuse for them....sad.  These guys doing the best they can to try and protect our borders and you get idoits like this who favor the drug smuggler...  I guarantee you these people don't have kids and don't care what happens to this country after they die.....just the facts.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

KMAN said:


> You can't disprove the source so you tear it down...  in typical liberal fashion to....give me a break



When Clinton was president, the conservatives were quoting "Capital Hill Blue"  all the time and the liberals were dismissing it.  Then when Bush first became president and Capital Hill Blue said some very bad things about him, suddenly all the liberals were quoting it.

Some people will only believe what they want to believe.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> The jury listened to ALL the testimony.  They didn't believe the border patrol agents testimony and neither do I.
> 
> I'm sure you have very nice LE friends.  I hope your friends don't file false reports, and cover up their misdeeds like Ramos and Compean did.



At least one of the jury members says they were coerced  into voting guilty.  

OJ was declared "not guilty" did you believe his jury too?


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

KMAN said:


> It's impossible talking to some of these people like sky who don't understand the case.
> 
> I think you will find that the people on this board who defen the smugglers are either illegal immigrants, liberals, or hate the US...  That's the only excuse for them....sad.  These guys doing the best they can to try and protect our borders and you get idoits like this who favor the drug smuggler...  I guarantee you these people don't have kids and don't care what happens to this country after they die.....just the facts.



I disagree with Sky on a lot of things, but this one bother's me the most, only because IMO there is only one right and wrong in this case.  You can't look at it two ways.  I know Sky isn't stupid so I can only conclude he just doesn't want to believe the border patrol agents are innocent in this case.  Truth to tell, neither do I.  I don't want to admit that our justice system is so messed up that it will send two border patrol officers to jail for doing their jobs.  I can't ignore the facts though.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

No one is defending the smuggler, it is disingenous at least, to say so.  Had Sheila and I been on the same jury, there would have been a hung jury.  

These two bozo BP agents could have arrested the guy and been honest about discharging their weapons.  That would have saved them all that work lying and covering it up--which is how they have ended up in prison.

Facts are these two agents discharged their weapons repeatedly.  Evidence shows the smuggler was unarmed.    Rather than arrresting the guy they shot, they picked up their shells and failed to report the firing their weapons.  

These guys messed up, bad, and they paid for it.  Those are the breaks in our justice system.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> At least one of the jury members says they were coerced  into voting guilty.
> 
> *OJ was declared "not guilty" did you believe his jury too?[/*QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

Is lying to your superiors part of effective BP work?  What about cover up?  Is that the kind of LE you want?

How about LE that shoots unarmed suspects?


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 27, 2008)

I personally support holding public servants to a higher standard than common citizens or criminals. After all, it aint like we are placing our trust in regular joes. If the border patrol isn't effective then blaming R&C isn't anything but excuses. It indicates a systemic failure and needs to be addressed that way.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> I personally support holding public servants to a higher standard than common citizens or criminals. After all, it aint like we are placing our trust in regular joes. If the border patrol isn't effective then blaming R&C isn't anything but excuses. It indicates a systemic failure and needs to be addressed that way.



Ramos and Compean acted as _individuals _in their crimes.  Blaming their criminality on 'systemic failure' in the justice system or the ineffectiveness of the border patrol system is BS.


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> pegwinn said:
> 
> 
> > *I personally support holding public servants to a higher standard than common citizens or criminals. After all, it aint like we are placing our trust in regular joes.* If the border patrol isn't effective then blaming R&C isn't anything but excuses. It indicates a systemic failure and needs to be addressed that way.
> ...



You've misunderstood. I was not hammering the justice system at all. Please note the emphasis I added to my post above. Additionally I do not support other agents of the BP blaming thier lack of effectivness on the results of R&C. Below I have quoted my own post on page one of this thread. If you go back to the post you will see I had other comments I placed in the body of the source article as well. Hope this clears things up. Sorry for the lack of effective communication 



pegwinn said:


> I have a couple of issues with the story itself.
> 
> This thing reeks with incompetence and cowardice at the local level. It further reeks with incompetence in the chain of command for not conducting the required training to instill a physical aggressiveness needed to overcome the smugglers. It reeks of political cowardice since we are apparently afraid of pissing off Mexico.
> 
> Campean y Ramos is not relevant. They are a separate case and are now being used as a political rallying cry by one group and as an excuse for not doing their jobs by another.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

Thanks pegwinn

That clears things up quite a bit.  Cowardice.  Yes.  The whole thing is one big morality play about the downfall of cowardice all the way around.

The smuggler ought to be the one locked up, not the agents.  If they hadn't been incompetent, that's what would have happened.


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 27, 2008)

aaah no worries. Reagan was the great communicator. I am merely a retired Jarhead who had some time on his hands today.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> No one is defending the smuggler, it is disingenous at least, to say so.  Had Sheila and I been on the same jury, there would have been a hung jury.
> 
> These two bozo BP agents could have arrested the guy and been honest about discharging their weapons.  That would have saved them all that work lying and covering it up--which is how they have ended up in prison.
> 
> ...



Why do you discount the doctor's testimony that says the bullet entered and exited consistant with someone who was turning around as if to aim something (a weapon) behind him and instead trust the smuggler's testimony that he was unarmed?  How could you  believe a guy smuggling 800 pounds of marijuana was unarmed?

There is no evidence that the smuggler was unarmed with the exception of his testimony.  In fact the physcial evidence, the doctor's testimony was based on shows the smuggler was most likely pointing a gun at them as he was running.

Again, if you read the transcripts, why do you discount the doctor's testimony?


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Is lying to your superiors part of effective BP work?  What about cover up?  Is that the kind of LE you want?
> 
> How about LE that shoots unarmed suspects?



TWO supervisors showed up at the scene, they didn't hide anything.  One of the supervisors said since no one was hurt, don't file a report or "we'll be here all night".  If anyone goes to jail for not filing a report, it should  be the supervisor that lied under oath and got a promotion.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > At least one of the jury members says they were coerced  into voting guilty.
> ...


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> Why do you discount the doctor's testimony that says the bullet entered and exited consistant with someone who was turning around as if to aim something (a weapon) behind him and instead trust the smuggler's testimony that he was unarmed?  How could you  believe a guy smuggling 800 pounds of marijuana was unarmed?
> 
> There is no evidence that the smuggler was unarmed with the exception of his testimony.  In fact the physcial evidence, the doctor's testimony was based on shows the smuggler was most likely pointing a gun at them as he was running.
> 
> Again, if you read the transcripts, why do you discount the doctor's testimony?




What makes you think I discount the doctor's testimony?  There was quite a bit of testimony and evidence.  Apparently the preponderance of evidence was to find Ramos and Compean guilty.

This is the way it is.  Juries make decisions based on evidence.  You claim the smuggler had a gun, and the evidence does not show that.  Your evidence is what I would call 'faith based'.  You have faith in cops.   Just because they are LE, you think somehow they would not lie or be dishonest.  Clearly, the evidence shows the agents to have been deliberately deceptive about this shooting incident and to work hard to cover up the evidence.

I grant you, it is _possible_ the smuggler had a gun, but it is NOT the jury's fault that they found Ramos and Compean guilty.  NO GUN BELONGING TO THE SMUGGLER WAS FOUND.  These two keystone cops screwed up royally and didn't get Davila when they should have.  Evidence that may have helped them did not exist, largely because of their own poor behavior at the scene.

This was a bad shoot.  Ramos and Compean tried to cover it up.  The Justice Department was unable to look the other way.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> What makes you think I discount the doctor's testimony?  There was quite a bit of testimony and evidence.  Apparently the preponderance of evidence was to find Ramos and Compean guilty.
> 
> This is the way it is.  Juries make decisions based on evidence.  You claim the smuggler had a gun, and the evidence does not show that.  Your evidence is what I would call 'faith based'.  You have faith in cops.   Just because they are LE, you think somehow they would not lie or be dishonest.  Clearly, the evidence shows the agents to have been deliberately deceptive about this shooting incident and to work hard to cover up the evidence.
> 
> I grant you, it is possible the smuggler had a gun, but it is NOT the jury's fault that they found Ramos and Compean guilty.  NO GUN BELONGING TO THE SMUGGLER WAS FOUND.  These two keystone cops screwed up royally and didn't get Davila when they should have.  Evidence that may have helped them did not exist, largely because of their own poor behavior at the scene.




Because the smuggler continued running and got in a car which drove away.  It was later that any charges were filed, after the smuggler got in contact with his childhood friend border patrol agent who acted as the go between.  There isn't even any bullistics evidence to show that the bullet that hit the smugglar came from either Ramos's or Compeans's guns.  Do you really think he was going to volunteer the gun when the prosecutor went to Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the agents?

I think it's time to get rid of deal making and immunity, it leads to too much false testimony by the crooks who want to get off.

As for the childhood friend border patrol agent, why is he still an agent?  He LIED on his background information.  And his testimony, again was taken as truth.

So we have a jury who believes the testimony of people who've been proven to lie under oath and disbeliving the people for which there is no proof that they lied under oath.


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 27, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> Because the smuggler continued running and got in a car which drove away.  It was later that any charges were filed, after the smuggler got in contact with his childhood friend border patrol agent who acted as the go between.  There isn't even any bullistics evidence to show that the bullet that hit the smugglar came from either Ramos's or Compeans's guns.  Do you really think he was going to volunteer the gun when the prosecutor went to Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the agents?
> 
> *I think it's time to get rid of deal making and immunity, it leads to too much false testimony by the crooks who want to get off.*
> 
> ...



Repped for the comment in bold. But your last para needs work. The jury would not know those things. I've been on a jury and found out later some of the stuff that was withheld from us.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 27, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> Because the smuggler continued running and got in a car which drove away.  It was later that any charges were filed, after the smuggler got in contact with his childhood friend border patrol agent who acted as the go between.  There isn't even any bullistics evidence to show that the bullet that hit the smugglar came from either Ramos's or Compeans's guns.  Do you really think he was going to volunteer the gun when the prosecutor went to Mexico and offered him immunity to testify against the agents?
> 
> I think it's time to get rid of deal making and immunity, it leads to too much false testimony by the crooks who want to get off.
> 
> ...



Sheila,

You and I could sit down with the trial transcripts and deal with the testimony--just the testimony alone.  Not the spin from Lou Dobbs show.

The jury made the right call based on the evidence at trial.  No new information warranted the judge appealing the trial decision.  It's regrettable that these agents have a ten year sentence for their misconduct.

These two agents should have hauled the smuggler to the jail.  The guy was down on the ground.  They should have reported the shoot and let LE investigate the shoot.

Then all available evidence would have been recovered.  I think they paid dearly for these mistakes, but it isn't a flaw of the justice system.  The justice system worked as it's supposed to.  The jury hears the evidence and decides whether to convict, the court sentences.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

pegwinn said:


> Repped for the comment in bold. But your last para needs work. The jury would not know those things. I've been on a jury and found out later some of the stuff that was withheld from us.



Good point.  

The prosecutor should be doing jail time because he knew the smuggler lied under oath.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 27, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Sheila,
> 
> You and I could sit down with the trial transcripts and deal with the testimony--just the testimony alone.  Not the spin from Lou Dobbs show.
> 
> ...




It all comes down to the question "Did the smuggler have a gun".  We know that smugglers have guns.  We also know that the doctor's testimony is consistant with someone that was pointing a gun at the patrol officers.

You may choose not to believe the smuggler was pointing a gun at the officers but even if he wasn't, as long as they believed he was, they were right to shoot. 

As to the rest, not one but two supervisers showed up immediately after.  They KNEW shots had been fired and were there when one of them picked up some of his shells and threw them in anger. They are the ones that were suppose to file the report.  They didn't because they wanted to go home.  

Sorry Sky, but anyway you look at it, justice was not served in this case.


As for the smuggler being down on the ground, he wasn't for very long and got up and attacked Ramos, then started running.


----------



## indago (Dec 28, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> The Justice Department was unable to look the other way.



The "Justice Department" wasn't just "unable to look the other way", they went out of their way to prosecute these two border agents.

*ALSO*


> Not the spin from Lou Dobbs show.



And, what "spin" would that be?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 28, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> It all comes down to the question "Did the smuggler have a gun".  *We know that smugglers have guns*.  We also know that the doctor's testimony is consistant with someone that was pointing a gun at the patrol officers.
> 
> You may choose not to believe the smuggler was pointing a gun at the officers but even if he wasn't, as long as they believed he was, they were right to shoot.
> 
> ...




1.  The evidence did not indicate the smuggler had a gun.  There was no gun found, and eye witnesses, other than the accused, did not see the smuggler with a gun.  Your claim; 'we all know smugglers have guns' is a weak argument.  The evidence does not prove the smuggler had a gun.  Juries convict on evidence--not on faith--in LE never lying or smuggler 'always' having guns.

2.  The smuggler had his hands up in surrender position.  The BP agent decided to smack the smuggler with the agents firearm.  The smuggler took off rather than stay and take a beating.  Then the agents started firing as he was running.

3.  The MD testimony is that the position of the bullet is consistent with the possibility that the suspect was turning around to face his pursuants when he was shot.  The rest is speculation--faith based again.  There is no evidence that the smuggler had a gun.

4.  There is a ton of evidence that Ramos and Compean were incompetent.  There is evidence of filing false reports and covering up their deeds.  There is the evidence that they did not take Davila into custody after shooting him. 

5.  They didn't file a report because they wanted to go home?  That's not acceptable police work--especially when firearms are discharged.

I have spent hours pouring over the trial transcripts.  At one point, I had printed them all out and read every page.  Sheila--you are reading media spin.  The anti-immigration zealots like Dobbs have decided to try the entire case in the media--instead of studying the actual trial transcripts.  You are making a plausible case, it could have happened the way you say it did, but the evidence does not back up your theory.

Ramos and Compean lost.  I'm sorry for that.  If they had done their jobs right, it would be the smuggler that Johnny Sutton would have put away--NOT the cops.  Prosecution is gnerally on the side of LE.

Sutton is apparently a better prosecutor than the defense attorneys, or the evidence just wasn't compelling enough for the jury to dismiss the case or claim the BP not guilty.

Your side lost.  I'm sorry for that.


----------



## Walt (Dec 28, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> The jury listened to ALL the testimony.  They didn't believe the border patrol agents testimony and neither do I.
> 
> I'm sure you have very nice LE friends.  I hope your friends don't file false reports, and cover up their misdeeds like Ramos and Compean did.



Sky I disagree that the jury heard all the testimony. They were not allowed to hear that awaiting trial he was arrested again for the same offence. 

I also have a couple other questions that maybe those who read the transripts can answer. 1. How does someone out-run someone with a bullet in their butt. 2. Was the bullet said to have hit him in the butt ever recovered?


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 28, 2008)

Walt said:


> Sky I disagree that the jury heard all the testimony. They were not allowed to hear that awaiting trial he was arrested again for the same offence.
> 
> I also have a couple other questions that maybe those who read the transripts can answer. 1. How does someone out-run someone with a bullet in their butt. 2. Was the bullet said to have hit him in the butt ever recovered?




Yes.  That is the way our justice system works.  The judge decides what evidence is and is not admissable.

1.  The smuggler did not have a bullet in his butt untill he was close to the border.  15 rounds were fired.  An eye witness, Agent Juarez testified that the smuggler did not have a gun and that he did not feel the agents were threatened or returning fire.

2.  The bullet was recovered.  It was surgically removed from the smugglers butt.  The BP agent stipulated the bullet was in fact, the one he discharged from his service weapon.


----------



## pegwinn (Dec 28, 2008)

The bottom line is that public servants are (and should be IMO) held to a higher standard than joe six pack. When they fall, they should fall harder. We place a huge amount of special trust and confidence in them to do thier jobs correctly.

I've followed the thread really closely and I see three problems.

1. R&C broke the law. No matter what reasons they had, they broke the law.

2. The BP chain of command apparently facilitated it. Additionally the BP now is using the R&C decision as an excuse to not fully do the job they are tasked with.

3. The prosecution used some really shady tactics to convict these two. It makes me wonder if they knew something else about them that we don't know? OR if the prosecutor was looking for a high profile case to launch a personal reward? I don't know, but it smells and should be investigated as well.

Just my dos centavos (yeah folks that is a joke btw)


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 28, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> 1.  The evidence did not indicate the smuggler had a gun.  There was no gun found, and eye witnesses, other than the accused, did not see the smuggler with a gun.  Your claim; 'we all know smugglers have guns' is a weak argument.  The evidence does not prove the smuggler had a gun.  Juries convict on evidence--not on faith--in LE never lying or smuggler 'always' having guns.
> 
> 2.  The smuggler had his hands up in surrender position.  The BP agent decided to smack the smuggler with the agents firearm.  The smuggler took off rather than stay and take a beating.  Then the agents started firing as he was running.
> 
> ...



The jury makes their decision on the "perponderance" of the evidence.  The smuggler got in a car and drove away, so there was no gun found.  Nor could there be even if he had one.  Johhny Sutton went to Mexico to find this man and bring him back to testify against the border patrol agents...why?  

Why was the border patrol agent/childhood friend of the smuggler not charged with anything?  He LIED on his background report.  Had he not lied, he wouldn't even be a border patrol agent.  Why is he STILL a border patrol agent?  IMO he's the one that should have been charged, how many times has he let his childhood friend across the border with the drugs?

As you have finally admitted, he turned around while running.  Guess what?  He didn't have to have a gun, the border patrol agents only had to believe he had one to fire.  That's their job.  I've seen the training film.  When the guy reaches into his pocket, you fire...yeah, you kill the deaf guy but the alternative is that he could be getting a gun to fire on you.  And yes, that's in the training film and yes it was a real life situation where the cops fired and yes they killed a deaf man and yes there were no charges filed.  It was justified.


It was up to the supervisors to file the report....when your supervisor tells you not to...he's the boss, you do as he says.  

You give the benefit of the doubt to a smuggler that lied under oath, I give the benefit of the doubt to the border patrol agents.

The question is, why would you give the benefit of the doubt to a known criminal even now, after the trial, knowing he lied under oath and that he continued to smuggle drugs into this country even under the protection of the prosecutor?


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 28, 2008)

Walt said:


> Sky I disagree that the jury heard all the testimony. They were not allowed to hear that awaiting trial he was arrested again for the same offence.
> 
> I also have a couple other questions that maybe those who read the transripts can answer. 1. How does someone out-run someone with a bullet in their butt. 2. Was the bullet said to have hit him in the butt ever recovered?



No the bullet was never recovered....therefore no bullistics match and no proof that the bullet that hit him was even fired from the agents.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 28, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Yes.  That is the way our justice system works.  The judge decides what evidence is and is not admissable.
> 
> 1.  The smuggler did not have a bullet in his butt untill he was close to the border.  15 rounds were fired.  An eye witness, Agent Juarez testified that the smuggler did not have a gun and that he did not feel the agents were threatened or returning fire.
> 
> 2.  The bullet was recovered.  It was surgically removed from the smugglers butt.  The BP agent stipulated the bullet was in fact, the one he discharged from his service weapon.



Not from what I read, sky.  No bullet was recovered.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 28, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> No the bullet was never recovered....therefore no bullistics match and no proof that the bullet that hit him was even fired from the agents.




Agent Ramos stipulated and agreed BEFORE TRIAL that the bullet was extracted from Aldrete came from his service weapon.  Independent forensic analysis also showed that the bullet extracted from Aldrete matched Agent Ramos weapon.


----------



## sky dancer (Dec 28, 2008)

Againsheila said:


> Not from what I read, sky.  No bullet was recovered.




I'm reading from Department of Justice records and trial transcripts.


----------



## Againsheila (Dec 28, 2008)

sky dancer said:


> Agent Ramos stipulated and agreed BEFORE TRIAL that the bullet was extracted from Aldrete came from his service weapon.  Independent forensic analysis also showed that the bullet extracted from Aldrete matched Agent Ramos weapon.



Okay, you're going on the trial transcipts... where in there is it said that the bullet was recovered or that a bullistics report was done.  I will admit, I don't have the trial transcripts anymore, my computer died.  I'm working on a netbook I got for my birthday this year and I like it, but it's a little more difficult to type on.


----------



## Pawn-King-Nine (Aug 11, 2019)

I certainly would !


----------

