|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smoore
Yeah, all of these reports are on the right wing blogs. Hell, hit any of them up and you can read all about it. There is no data for us to evaluate. It's in the hands of lawyers and they are going to have to hash it out. If this evidence and eyewitness reports do stand up to the court's requirements they should get a new trial.
I want to read the transcript of the doctor's testimony, myself.
I certainly wouldn't sign a petition for their pardon but if the executive thinks they should be pardoned then so be it. Far worse crimes have been pardoned in the past.
So why isn't anyone responding to my assertion this is just a casualty in the War on Drugs? When you fight wars, people get shot. The agents didn't know the van was full of pot but they see this behavior all the time. They undoubtedly assumed once the guy left his vehicle and started running that something was up.
IIRC both of these guys are long-term agents that haven't been known in the past for abuse. I know it doesn't mean it hasn't happened but let's assume they are clean. Why did they pick this day to victimize an innocent man and try to gun him down in cold blood?
|
Quote:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/03/27/dobbs.ramos/index.html
Interview with Ignacio Ramos
POSTED: 4:17 p.m. EDT, March 28, 2007
....DOBBS: Well, there are millions of people who agree with that view.
Let me ask you a few questions about the prosecution: have you got a sense as to why the U.S. attorney prosecuted you and Compeon so vigorously?
RAMOS: You know, from the very beginning, we've asked ourselves -- you know, my family and I -- that from the very beginning, why they've come after us so hard and, you know, with all the letters and stuff that I've received -- obviously many stories and clippings and news stories now about why they think they came after us so hard.
But you know, it's still a real big mystery to me. I mean, if you go on a lot of the stuff that I've heard, it's incredible. And I really hope a lot of that's not true. But it's still -- just the basic fact that what it comes down to, taking the word of a drug smuggler, period, over us is just incredible enough to make this, you know, just -- make us all just flabbergasted about the whole thing, because you know, I just -- I've done this for ten years and I remember a lot of the words that were said during the trial, and to say that he had plenty of credibility or what he did didn't hurt his credibility was just incredible.
<h3>DOBBS: Let me ask you -- let's go back to the day of the shooting: when you're following the van -- the van you followed, did you have any sense that there were drugs in it?
RAMOS: I had a pretty good sense, I mean, like I said, I had done this for the last ten years and the fact that the person that was driving this van didn't yield to, at the time, Agent Juarez, who first encountered the van, and then didn't yield to me, once I got behind it, pretty much gave us a good indication that at that time, yes, 99 percent chance that he was carrying narcotics in the van. I mean, that's just the way things worked out there.</h3>
DOBBS: You said, when you were down in the ditch and you were pursuing the suspect, or the witness, as it turns out, that you heard shots fired. What did you think was going on?
RAMOS: Well obviously, some type of altercation. and if there are shots being fired, I have to assume that, you know, in this case that it's the smugglers shooting at the other agent, and I knew that Agent Compeon was by himself, you know, because he was the only one standing between him and the smugglers' freedom to Mexico at the time.
So there was -- there was no other thought for me, other than he was in danger and he was being shot at.
<h3>DOBBS: At what point did you fire at the suspect?
RAMOS: When he made a threatening motion to me, when he turned and pointed what I believed was a gun to me. Had he never turned, you know, there would have been no shot. But when I told him to stop, he turned and made a threatening motion to me, and that's when I fired.</h3>
DOBBS: The prosecutor said you and Compeon failed to arrest the drug smuggler, and that's why they couldn't charge him. Does that make any sense to you?
RAMOS: None at all. I mean, we tried our best to arrest him, that's what we were doing. Yet, during the trial, she chastised us for doing what we did and why we didn't just let him go home. That's kind of incredible to hear, and I know I've heard it plenty of times, but I mean, there's plenty of things that put him on the scene. If they're saying that I shot him, well, that pretty much puts him there, you know.
DOBBS: Pretty conclusive.
RAMOS: I would say. I mean, they're the ones that -- they're the ones saying that it's my bullet there, so I would say that puts him there 100 percent.
DOBBS: You've refused to do a plea deal with the prosecutor?
RAMOS: Yes, sir. Several times.
DOBBS: What did they offer you?
RAMOS: It started somewhere around five years, and I think the last time, it was for 18 months. But, there was just no way I was going to plead guilty to anything. I was doing my job. I would -- I didn't do anything wrong. I was stopping a drug smuggler, like I had done the last ten years. And plain and simple, I was going to make sure I went home, and do my best to make sure Agent Compeon went home that day, no matter what.
DOBBS: How many times have you had to fire your weapon in the line of duty?
RAMOS: That made it the second time.
DOBBS: What happened the first time?
RAMOS: The first time, I had just over a year in the Border Patrol. I had just completed a year. It was kind of the same situation: I was chasing a truck that carried almost 900 pounds of marijuana. It broke through a steel pipe gate that we have there on the levee. And I chased the smuggler all the way to the river. He managed to get all the way to the river. I was by myself that day, however the people that helped load him up were on the Mexican side still, and he yelled at them, and they had one person on the Mexican side with a rifle, and he started shooting at me. And I returned fire that day.
DOBBS: As far as you know, you didn't hit anyone?
RAMOS: No, not that I know of. I never heard anything about that.
DOBBS: Did you file a report on that?
RAMOS: Yes, because -- that's something the prosecution brought up, that I called it out over the radio. But see, like I said that day in trial, I had no choice. I was completely by myself, so I had to take the time to call for help that day. As I said in this trial, the reason I didn't take the time to call on the radio is because I knew I had at least four other agents behind, and I expected them to at least get on the radio and call for help. If not, at least come through the canal like I did and come help us. I expected that. And they didn't come. Why they didn't, I don't know; I couldn't answer for them.
DOBBS: And that wasn't brought -- their answers weren't offered at trial?
RAMOS: They didn't ask them.
DOBBS: On this one, how many other agents and supervisors were there at the time of the -- you know, while you were there?
RAMOS: They arrived after the fact.
DOBBS: How much after?
RAMOS: Well, we kept an eye on the smuggler, I would say, a couple minutes, until he was picked up by the -- by a vehicle on the Mexican side, and he left. But, you know -- it wasn't much after that, because they could hear all the radio traffic, so they must have been on their way to the area, which is another thing they, you know, the prosecution, argued about about us -- or, me in particular, not saying anything on the radio. But of course, I had -- I did, and they had to have heard me, or else they wouldn't know where we were.
But -- so, it wasn't -- it wasn't like ten or fifteen minutes after the fact that they got there. They got there within a couple of minutes, if anything.
DOBBS: Do you feel those agents were supportive of you?
RAMOS: Which ones? The supervisors?
DOBBS: The supervisors and the other agents that were behind you.
RAMOS: Well, they were supportive to an extent. I think the agents that were behind me could have, in retrospect, done a lot more. Like I said, I expected them to follow. I shouldn't have been the only one going through that canal to help Agent Compeon. They should have been right behind me. At least, I think so.
As far as the supervisors, well, they're management and they're going to take their course (ph), especially for a company like Mr. Richards, you know. I'll pretty much leave that one alone.
DOBBS: The idea of picking up your brass -- what made you do that?
RAMOS: I didn't touch the brass at all.
DOBBS: But you knew Compeon was picking up his brass, right?
RAMOS: No, I didn't.
DOBBS: You didn't?
RAMOS: No. That's -- that's what I testified to, I didn't -- and I didn't see him. And that's -- of course, the prosecution tried to place me, or put it that I knew and placed me at the time that I saw him, or placed me at the scene where I did it as well. But I never saw him, I never did it, and I never knew he did it.
DOBBS: How far were you from Compeon when you fired your shot?
RAMOS: Well I had ran past him, when I fired my shot. I would -- I don't recall what I had testified to. I think I had said maybe twenty or thirty feet, maybe?
DOBBS: And how far was this drug smuggler, when you fired at him, from you?
RAMOS: I'd say twenty or twenty-five yards. Because he was almost by the river's edge, or quite near it.
DOBBS: That's a helluva good shot.
RAMOS: I think it was pretty lucky -- pretty unfortunate for me, actually.
DOBBS: I understand -- making a bad joke.
RAMOS: No, I know.
DOBBS: The idea -- do you hold out any hope for a pardon, either a congressional pardon or a presidential pardon?....
|
smoore, if you're willing to dig, you can probably find the transcript of the doctor's tesitmony, here:
There are 29 links to the trial transcript at the bottom of this page"
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_...Compean-Ramos/
Segment of trial transcript:
Quote:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_...Volume%208.pdf
(host adds: Prosecutor Debra Kanof speaking to trial judge, before start of day's court
session in trial of Compean and Ramos: )
pg 12
1 Government abuses the immunity power -- the Court hasn't made a
2 ruling that the Government has abused their immunity power. If
3 the Court does rule that way, then I would like time to
4 research it -- and that the Government unfairly skewed the
5 facts.
6 We're not trying to be unfair. Again, it's a
7 prosecutorial bad faith or impropriety issue. And, in this
8 case, the Government hasn't attempted to do -- to do anything
9 improper, to unfairly skew anything or to abuse their immunity
10 power. So I don't think that case stands for the proposition
11 at all.
<h3>12 The Court asked the absolute positive key question:
13 Do you have any information that he ever engaged, prior to
14 February 17, 2005, in any drug trafficking activity?
15 Ms. Stillinger does not have that information, and I
16 will represent to the Court, neither does the Government.
17 There is no evidence. We have no knowledge of him ever being
18 involved before.
19 I think the big issue that they're talking about is
20 that he said he didn't know how it was pressed. And they want
21 to leap to the fact that he's been in drug trafficking before,
22 because he used that terminology. Now, he's from a small town
23 on the border. And I'll tell you, you know, my niece and
24 nephew understand pressing marijuana, and they're not drug
25 traffickers.</h3>
pg 13
1 Your Honor, the issue, as she represented to the
2 Court, the issue here is his credibility. There are laws,
3 rules, and cases that govern what you can impeach. For the
4 purpose of credibility, it's Rule 608. You can do it through
5 reputation or opinion testimony.
6 There's -- I mean, she came right out and told the
7 Court, it's all about credibility. If you want to provide
8 evidence that is offered for an individual's truth or untruth,
9 you do not use extrinsic facts.
10 And, in this case, they can't use extrinsic facts.
11 There aren't any that occurred before this date. You can use
12 reputation testimony. If they want to bring half the people
13 from San Isidro to say, you know, he has a reputation of being
14 a liar, or he has -- I believe he's a liar, fine. Even then
15 they couldn't talk about -- well, then they could be questioned
16 as to their -- their -- what they know or how they know that.
17 But, basically, nothing has changed from the Court's ruling
18 before.
19 That case she cites isn't talking about this
20 situation. It doesn't appear to be on point. It appears to be
21 talking about prosecutorial misconduct. Of coures, I don't
22 know, because I haven't read the case.
23 But the Government has not tried to unfairly skew
24 anything. <h3>The Government has tried to try the defendants and
25 not this witness. And there is nothing he has said to open the
pg 14
1 door to any other drug trafficking activity that he may or may
2 not have engaged in.
3 Also, Ms. Stillinger misstated that he's the only
4 witness that can say whether or not there was gun, because
5 Oscar Juarez sees him with his hands up and sees him take off
6 running. And there is also circumstantial evidence that he did
7 not have a gun and that the defendants did know he did not have
8 a gun.</h3> They're charged with that, and that's covering it up.
|
So, again....what us the information that would jusitfy a pardon or a new trial? The shooter....the defendant who wounded the victim, Ignacio Ramos, admitted in his post conviction interview with Lou Dobbs, that he had no specific knowledge, only an assumption, based on prior experience (prejudice?)that the driver of the van he was pursuing, was 99 percent certain to be transporting "narcotics".....is marijuana a narcotic? Isn't Ramos talking about "profiling"? Wasn't he pursuing a van that ignored a direction by another officer, to stop?
With no evidence of knowledge that the driver was guilty of anything other than engaging an officer in pursuit, what is all of this other "stuff" coming from Ramos and his defense attorney's, to attempt to justify shooting the fleeing man?
How come, Ottopilot, it is so easy for you to be objecting to the jury verdict in this case? I would want to read the entire trial transcript, since it is available, before I decided to object to the verdict in this case.
Are we all in agreement that anything this witness (the shooting victim) did after the shooting....any discovery of his criminal behavior, is immaterial to the charges...shooting a fleeing, unarmed man who engaged officers in pursuit and attempted, peacefully to evade arrest, even though a history of violence, if established, might diminish his credibility as a prosecution witness.
The prosecutor pointed out that she had another witness, officer Juarez, who testified that the man had held up empty hands before turning and fleeing.
Consider also that Ramos was found to have shot the fleeing man in the left buttock, and again....that Ramos and Compean did not report the shooting!
Last edited by host; 03-30-2008 at 04:58 PM..
|