Why Do You Disagree With Convictions of Ex-Border Patrol Compean & Ramos? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

host · 03-30-2008, 10:47 AM

My thanks to Ottopilot for inspiring me to start this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...51#post2423151

Regardless of ideology or perspective, Libby lied under oath. Our law requires that he should be in prison. I'm very disappointed with the decision to commute. I believe anyone that lies under oath, willfully violates civil-rights, uses the power of office to suborn purgery, etc., should be fully prosecuted and sentenced. This would include folks like the the Iran-Contra clowns, anyone found guilty under the current administration, and absolutely Bill Clinton and friends. Sorry, it's the way I see it, I don't mean to open another can of worms here.

What ever you believe about Libby's trial, it was politics as usual on all sides (shady actions and character assassination) ... Libby was a willing patsy. Right or wrong, the trial evidence was not enough to convict. If he didn't purger himself, he would have walked.

If anyone needs a pardon, it's border agents like Ramos and Campean who are serving time for essentially doing their jobs (IMO, political prisoners to satisfy Mexico). Much more deserving than Mr. Libby.

An article from http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/

I love this topic. But shouldn't we take it over to the appropriate thread? ... just saying.

It could be fun!

What am I "not getting" about the protests of the conviction and sentencing of these two ex-US Border Patrol Officers?

I read the unofficial transcript of the US senate hearing, held last July, after Compean and Ramos were convicted by a jury:

Quote:

http://newspapertree.com/features/15...nscript-part-1

Ramos-Compean Senate Hearing Transcript Part 1
by NPT Staff
PART 1 OF 3: The office of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein released the unofficial transcript of last week's hearing (held July 17, 2007) on the Ramos-Compean case. Witnesses included David Aguilar and Luis Barker, chief and former deputy chief, respectively, of the Office of Border Patrol, U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Also on the list: Johnny Sutton, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Texas, T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, and David L. Botsford, appellate counsel for agent Ignacio Ramos.

Posted on July 23, 2007

....Sen. Feinstein:

FEINSTEIN:
......Deputy Chief Barker retired from the U.S. Border Patrol in July
2006 after more than 28 years of service. At the time of his
retirement, he was the national deputy chief of the Border Patrol in
Washington, D.C., where he had served since May of 2005.

Prior to that, he served in a number of key leadership positions
in the Border Patrol, including the position of chief Border Patrol
agent in the Laredo and El Paso, Texas, sectors. Before joining the
Border Patrol in 1978, he was a police officer and acting detective
for five and a half years with the Jersey City Police Department
narcotics squad.....

BARKER: As a senior leader in the Border Patrol, I am extremely
proud of the men and women who serve and protect this nation and who I
had the honor to lead.

Today, even in retirement, I'm still proud of the great work that
these men and women do in defense of the homeland. Day after day,
they do this difficult and dangerous job in securing our nation's
borders under extreme condition and do it with a personal pride and
dedication that is to be applauded.

They literally put their lives on the lines every day, yet do
great things to make us proud. They are genuine heroes, and certainly
deserving of our support -- of your support, rather, and that of the
American people.

To prepare them for the dangers and rigors of this job, each
agent undergoes extensive training, to include firearms training and
the use of force. This training instills professionalism and makes
every agent understand that he or she is held to a higher standard and
that they must obey the laws of the land and of the community in which
they live.

Every agent that entered on duty when I was the chief patrol
agent in El Paso sector had this reinforced to them by me before going
to the Border Patrol Academy and, again, upon their return from the
academy and before reporting to field duties.

They are told about the trust that is placed in them to enforce
the laws within the limits authorized, a trust that if violated has
enduring consequences.

The motto of the Broder Patrol is "honor first," an ideal that is
instilled in every agent from the day they walk through the door of
any sector in the Border Patrol and in moving into the training and
indoctrination at the Border Patrol Academy. It is something that has
sustained the Border Patrol.

During my tenure as chief patrol agent in the El Paso sector
there have been numerous incidents where officers have discharged
their weapons, but almost -- but most of them accidental.

Of these weapon discharges, six were incidents where agents used
deadly force to defend themselves from a threat against them,
resulting in two fatalities.

The firearm policy mandates the reporting of every shooting
incident, accidental or otherwise, for proper investigation and
disposition.

For this reason, the scene must be secured, proper notification
must be made to bring the investigative resources to bear.

Every agent understands the requirement to notify a supervisor of
a discharge of a service firearm and the implication for not doing so.

On or about March 4, 2005, I received a memorandum from an agent
in Tucson sector informing us of a shooting incident connected with a
narcotics seizure that occurred in the El Paso sector on February
17th, 2005, approximately two weeks earlier.

At that point in time we had no recent report of shootings, so
the information in the memorandum was surprising to us.

After checking the records and making some inquiries, we had
reason to believe that the allegations in the memorandum had some
merit. We immediately made the proper notifications and made the
initial report to the Office of Inspector General because of the
seriousness of the allegations.

As we all know, the events of February 17th, 2005, resulted in
the conviction and sentencing of former agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose
Compean. Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, the "victim" -- and I use it in
quotes, because he is not deserving of the title because of his trade,
a trade that supplies nothing but misery to those who are trapped in
its clutches -- in the clutches of its product -- he deserves no
sympathy and I give him none.

BARKER: Only circumstances make this characterization possible.

I do, however, feel for Agents Compean and Ramos and their
families for what they have endured and will endure as the result of
the terrible choices they made on February 17, 2005.

<h3>Though there is an emotional connection in this case, those of us
in leadership and those having the responsibly to apply the rule of
law cannot abdicate our responsibilities.

Agent misconduct, even criminal misconduct, does occur, despite
our best efforts in selection and training, but we do everything to
deter it and act decisively when it occurs.

It saddens me because, had the two agents behaved with the
integrity and honor that we instill -- following procedure, disclosing
the shooting, not tampering with the evidence and encouraging others
to do so -- the results might have been very different.

In fact, in my experience, almost every agent-involved shooting
is resolved in the favor of the agent without criminal charges. So to
suggest that the Border Patrol went after these agents for
administrative violations is baseless and I believe the facts in this
case supports this premise.</h3>

Agents Compean and Ramos used deadly force when it should not
have been applied. They shot a person in direct violation of the
policy and contrary to the training that they have received in this
regard.

From the statistical information I gave earlier, it is obvious
that this was not the first time agents used deadly force in the El
Paso sector. The differences between this case and the others are
glaring. Agents involved in other shooting cases reported them,
cooperated with the investigation and allowed it to run its course,
and an investigation which generally supported the agents' decision to
use deadly force.

Since the agents destroyed evidence -- since the agents -- I'm
sorry -- destroyed evidence, filed an incomplete report of the
incident in an effort to keep the shooting and the circumstances
surrounding it from the leadership.

BARKER: Additionally, their actions prevented the proper
investigation of this case -- investigation which I said generally
supports the actions of agents.

On April 28, 2005, when Agent Compean came before me to make his
oral reply to the proposal to indefinitely suspend him, I asked him
why he did not report the shooting. He said, and I quote, "I didn't."

He continued to say he knew that it was wrong for them not to
report and continued to say that if he thought that the suspect had
been hit, he would have.

He also said that he knew that they would get in trouble, a
thought that was confusing to me since I've established that when an
action is appropriate the investigation invariably proves this,
absolving the agents of any liability.

This has been a tragedy with emotional undercurrent, but there
should be no mistake about it, it begins and ends with the actions of
Agent Compean and Ramos, not the prosecutors, not the judge or the
jury, as has been suggested. The distorted facts have compounded this
already tragic situation by tarnishing the reputation of other people
who did the right thing.

The U.S. attorney, though his office in El Paso, has been a
strong supporter of the agents in El Paso sector, making it clear
through its prosecutions that assaults on agents will not be
tolerated.

They have also been on the front lines in those cases where
agents have used deadly force under circumstances that warrant it or
taken action that have resulted in injury or death, and they have
worked vigorously in supporting the agents.

Conversely, they are also intolerant of official criminal
misconduct or corruption, as they should.

Finally, it is suggested that this case will make agents hesitate
in a situation where deadly force is warranted. The facts do not
support this contention since the last two months...

FEINSTEIN: Could you conclude please, Deputy Chief Barker?
You're two minutes, 36 seconds over time.

BARKER: Just three more lines (inaudible).

FEINSTEIN: Thank you.

BARKER: The facts do not support this contention, since the last
two months agents have discharged their weapons against assailants in
self-defense on three occasions in El Paso, resulting in injury to
one. Agents have always defended themselves, and I have no doubt that
the will continue to do so when there is a threat.

I thank you for this opportunity, and I looking forward to
answering any questions that you may have.

FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much.

.....and I read this (it's loooooonnnnng....):

Quote:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20...ean/print.html

<hr size="1" color="#cccccc">

<font face="georgia, times new roman, times, serif">
<h2>The ballad of Ramos and Compean</h2>
</font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">
<b>How the anti-immigration right -- and Lou Dobbs -- turned two rogue Border Patrol agents into heroes and got Congress on their side.</b>
</font>

<p><b>By Alex Koppelman</b></p>

<font face="times new roman, times, serif" size="3"><p>Sep. 04, 2007 | Two years ago, in the Texas desert southeast of El Paso, two U.S. <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/border_patrol/">Border Patrol</a> agents fired 15 bullets at a suspected drug dealer who was fleeing on foot toward the border. The man, a Mexican national, was hit once in the buttocks but made it across the Rio Grande. The agents who fired their weapons, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, were sentenced to more than a decade in prison for firing on an unarmed man and then trying to cover up the crime. </p>

<p>For the prosecutors and the jury, the shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila near Fabens, Texas, was a clearly unlawful use of force. But the conviction of Ramos and Compean was just the beginning of the agents' story. Within months, they had become the center of a dubious political crusade that would energize the furthest reaches of the right, dominate one of CNN's most popular news programs, and persuade a quarter of the U.S. House of Representatives -- and one prominent Democratic senator -- to reject the findings of a federal court. </p>

<p>With the help of reporters and activists promoting -- and embellishing -- the defense's version of the case, the two convicted agents were transformed into martyrs for the battle against illegal <a href="http://dir.salon.com/topics/immigration/">immigration.</a> Instead of rogue officers who shot a fleeing, unarmed suspect and then lied about it, they became stand-up cops who were forced to shoot an armed drug dealer and then sent to prison by a legal system run amok. After they went to prison in January 2007, they even became the tragic heroes of a country song called <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT76uFU5iww">"Ramos and Compean."</a> </p>

<p>Nearly 400,000 people have signed a petition demanding a presidential pardon for the agents. There are two bills to pardon them pending in Congress, <a href="http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-563">one with more than 100 cosponsors,</a> including five Democrats. </p>

<p><h3>How did Ramos and Compean get reinvented as right-wing heroes? The answer lies in the way Americans get their information, from a fragmented news media that makes it easier than ever to tune out opposing views and inconvenient truths.</h3> When people seek "facts" only from sources with which they agree, it's possible for demonstrable untruths to enter the narrative and remain there unchallenged. The ballad of Ramos and Compean is a story that one side of America's polarized culture has gotten all wrong and that much of the other side -- and the rest of the country -- has never even heard. </p>

<p>Federal prosecutions of law enforcement agents are not undertaken lightly. "No prosecutor ever wants to be in a position of prosecuting a cop or a federal agent," says Johnny Sutton, U.S. attorney for the Western District of Texas, whose office prosecuted Ramos and Compean. "They're our co-workers, they're our friends, we represent them in court ... But when one steps over the line and commits a serious crime, it's very important that they be held accountable ... [and] most agents would say what these guys did was outrageous." </p>

<p>Prosecutors in Sutton's office considered the conduct of Ramos and Compean outrageous enough that the two men were charged with seven and nine counts, respectively. Both were charged with assault with intent to commit murder. At trial, government prosecutors presented a case, supported by eyewitness testimony, that alleged the following: On Feb. 17, 2005, Aldrete-Davila led Border Patrol agents on a high-speed car chase that ended at a ditch about 120 yards from Mexico. Aldrete-Davila abandoned a van with 743 pounds of marijuana inside and made a dash for the border. Compean, on foot, intercepted Aldrete-Davila, who put his hands in the air to surrender. </p>

<p>At that point, according to trial testimony, Compean tried to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his shotgun, missed, and fell into the 11-foot-deep ditch. Aldrete-Davila took off running. Compean climbed out of the ditch, shot at him 14 times and missed. Ramos, who had watched Compean fall, then fired once. The bullet entered Aldrete-Davila's left buttock, severed his urethra and came to rest in his right thigh. He fell down, but got back up, escaping across the Rio Grande into Mexico. The two agents then covered up the incident. Compean hid some of the shell casings and asked a third agent returning to the scene later that day to dispose of the rest. Neither Ramos nor Compean ever reported the shooting. They were arrested a month later, and then only because America's border with Mexico is like a very long and skinny small town. Aldrete-Davila's mother is friends with the mother-in-law of Rene Sanchez, a Border Patrol agent in Arizona. After hearing about the incident from his mother-in-law, Sanchez sent a report to the Department of Homeland Security in Washington, which then dispatched a special agent to Texas to investigate. </p>

<p>At trial in the federal courthouse in El Paso, Border Patrol agents from the Fabens station took the stand to testify against Ramos and Compean. Fellow agents, including one who had observed the shooting, contradicted Compean's story about where he was and how he was positioned when he fired his weapon. The agent who had helped Compean hide shell casings admitted it under oath. Prosecutors showed that Compean had repeatedly changed his story about the shooting and that it didn't match Ramos' account. They were also able to show that although Compean had discussed the shooting with other agents after it happened, it wasn't until his arrest that he began claiming that Aldrete-Davila had had a gun. </p>

<p>The prosecution's version of events was convincing enough for the jury, in March 2006, to find Ramos and Compean guilty of all but assault with intent to commit murder. Most media coverage of the case was local, and it comported with the jury's verdict: a bad shooting, a coverup and damning testimony from fellow agents that led to an uncontroversial conviction. Seven months later, a judge sentenced Ramos and Compean to 11 and 12 years in prison, respectively. </p>

<p>But by the time of their sentencing, the right wing had discovered the agents and begun constructing a new narrative. Ramos and Compean's newfound supporters soon settled on a radically different version of the shooting, cobbled together from speculation, rumors, misstatements of fact and various unproven assertions cherry-picked from the case the defense presented at trial. </p>

<p>In the right-wing version of the Aldrete-Davila case, the officers shot at the suspect because they feared for their safety. The agents' supporters say the fleeing suspect may, in fact, have been armed. In their scenario, Compean fell to one knee after trying to restrain Aldrete-Davila with the shotgun, and the suspect ran away. Compean then chased Aldrete-Davila and tackled him. Aldrete-Davila got away again. As Aldrete-Davila ran toward the border, he extended a gun behind him as if to fire, and Compean started shooting in self-defense. Ramos saw Compean on the ground, heard the shots and, believing his fellow agent shot or in danger, fired the bullet that hit Aldrete-Davila. Once the case went to trial, federal prosecutors supposedly manipulated witnesses and covered up Aldrete-Davila's misdeeds -- actually quashing a sealed indictment for drug smuggling -- in order to secure convictions of the two agents. </p>

<p>The story that Ramos and Compean's supporters constructed was essentially unchallenged by the mainstream media -- because the mainstream media wasn't paying attention. When traditional news outlets did cover Ramos and Compean, it was to comment on the right's fascination with the case, but not to examine or debunk the right's reporting. </p>

<p><h3>There are five major players in the transformation of Ramos and Compean from cops who tried to cover up a bad shooting into martyred heroes of the great conservative pushback against illegal immigration.</h3> The most important of them is Lou Dobbs, the host of CNN's "Lou Dobbs Tonight." Three other players -- journalist Sara A. Carter, activist Andy Ramirez and union official T.J. Bonner -- are previously obscure figures who appeared on Dobbs' show. The fifth is Jerome Corsi, the conservative commentator who coauthored the book, "Unfit for Command," that launched the Swift-boating of John Kerry. Corsi pushed the cause of Ramos and Compean on the Internet while Dobbs was pushing it on TV. All of them have served as megaphones for the right-wing's counter-narrative of the case

. click to show

</p>

As I said, I am not "getting" why you want these two pardoned or granted a new trial. Please explain....please do not cite any Brett Bozell related links/sites..... newsbusters.org, cnsnews, or Joseph Farah's WND, Worldnet Daily....they are not news sources.

Did these two guys betray the public trust, did they act outside the law?

Does it make a difference if the unarmed suspect who they shot as he fled, is someone you find reprehensible.....since Compean and Ramos did not even have enough confidence that they had acted within the Border Patrol's guidleines on the use of deadly force, to report the shooting incident and cooperate in the investigation....not interfering in the recovery of evidence, etc.?

Should officials who take an oath, who know the law, be held to a lower, higher, or to the same standard as others who attempt a cover up of their illegal acts and destroy evidence?

ottopilot · 03-30-2008, 12:04 PM

In light of the DEA report documenting the long list of criminal activities by the Mexican drug runner that was shot in the ass, depositions by fellow agents, and witness accounts all not allowed as testimony, I believe there is ample evidence warranting a new trial. Once all evidence is brought forth and they are convicted, send them back to jail.

Libby absolutely lied under oath, etc. He should be in jail. The Ramos and Campean case (IMO) deserves a retrial (minimum) or a pardon. The two issues were raised for contrast ... if the border agents are guilty, send them back ... otherwise, I have no emotional attachment to this issue.

BTW - this my complete post from the other thread
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=90

Quote:

Regardless of ideology or perspective, Libby lied under oath. Our law requires that he should be in prison. I'm very disappointed with the decision to commute. I believe anyone that lies under oath, willfully violates civil-rights, uses the power of office to suborn purgery, etc., should be fully prosecuted and sentenced. This would include folks like the the Iran-Contra clowns, anyone found guilty under the current administration, and absolutely Bill Clinton and friends. Sorry, it's the way I see it, I don't mean to open another can of worms here.

What ever you believe about Libby's trial, it was politics as usual on all sides (shady actions and character assassination) ... Libby was a willing patsy. Right or wrong, the trial evidence was not enough to convict. If he didn't purger himself, he would have walked.

If anyone needs a pardon, it's border agents like Ramos and Campean who are serving time for essentially doing their jobs (IMO, political prisoners to satisfy Mexico). Much more deserving than Mr. Libby.

An article from http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/

Quote:

Quote:
Congressman Jones response to Libby commutation: Pardon the border agents

In light of President George W. Bush’s recent commutation of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby’s prison sentence, North Carolina Congressman Walter B. Jones has written a letter to again call on the President to pardon U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.

“I am writing to express my deep disappointment that U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean remain unjustly incarcerated for wounding a Mexican drug smuggler who brought 743 pounds of marijuana across our border,” Jones wrote.

“While you have spared Mr. Libby from serving even one day of his ‘excessive’ 30-month prison term, agents Ramos and Compean have already served 167 days of their 11 and 12-year prison sentences,” Jones wrote. “By attempting to apprehend an illegal alien drug smuggler, these agents were enforcing our laws, not breaking them.”

“Mr. President, it is now time to listen to the American people and members of Congress who have called upon you to pardon these agents,” Jones continued. “By granting immunity and free health care to an illegal alien drug trafficker and allowing our law enforcement officers to languish in prison – our government has told its citizens, and the world, that it does not care about protecting our borders or enforcing our laws.”

“I urge you to correct a true injustice by immediately pardoning these two law enforcement officers,” Jones concluded.

Quote:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rekna
Well host the people defending Libby are the same ones who believe Iraq had WMD when we went in and that Saddam was responsible for 9/11.

I love this topic. But shouldn't we take it over to the appropriate thread? ... just saying.

It could be fun!
__________________
"absinthe makes the heart grow flounder" minitwo
"if my grandma had wheels she would have been a trolley car" loquitur
"we shall call you Minitwo...." silent_jay

The part about "I love this topic" is referring to Rekna's comment on who knew about WMD's in Iraq, not the border agents.

host · 03-30-2008, 12:32 PM

You have posted, on another thread, a committed opinion contrary to the findings of the jury and the court in the criminal case, but you're now posting that you are not interested in a discussion about what should happen to the defendants, in light of your contrary opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

In light of the DEA report documenting the long list of criminal activities by the Mexican drug runner that was shot, depositions by fellow agents, and witness accounts all not allowed as testimony, I believe there is ample evidence warranting a new trial. Once all evidence is brought forth and they are convicted, send them back to jail.

Libby absolutely lied under oath, etc. He should be in jail. The Ramos and Campean case (IMO) deserves a retrial, at minimum or a pardon. The two issues were raised for contrast, if the border agents are guilty, send them back.

Can you provide anything more convincing than your opinion....? If you believe what you are posting, it shouldn't be too difficult to share with us, what has persuaded you to disagree with the trial jury, the judge, the prosecution team, and the July, 2007 Senate hearing testimony by US border patrol officials and US Attorney Sutton, available at the link I posted below the quote of you indicating your interest and opinion about the case.

<h3>Can we all agree to leave the opinions of elected officials out of our posts</h3>, to increase the probability of avoiding distorting the actual points of fact related to the Compean and Ramos criminal investigation, prosecution, verdict, and sentnecing?

The only link you posted, (I dsiplayed it when I quoted you):

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...51#post2423151

.....An article from http://ramos-compean.blogspot.com/

....leads to the off the cuff statement of a "winger" appellate ciurt judge, E. Grady Jolly.....

Quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_F...l_Dist._v._Doe
There was a dissenting opinion of Circuit Judge Grady Jolly, who objected that now 'the majority expressly exerts control over the content of its citizens' prayers.'

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...4701/index.htm
Redefining fraud: Judicial opining
Reversals in the 'Nigerian barge case' won't help Jeff Skilling. But they revive a debate about what's fraud and what isn't.
By Roger Parloff, Fortune senior editor
August 22 2006: 7:27 AM EDT

....In 1987 an honest-services case finally reached the U.S. Supreme Court, with a shocking outcome. Though every federal appeals court had green-lighted the theory until then, the High Court rejected it, 7 to 2.

Liberals worried that it could tar as felons people who had no idea that their conduct could be considered a federal crime; conservatives worried that the feds were usurping state authority. Without deciding its constitutionality, the court banned further use of the theory, ruling that Congress simply never intended the mail- or wire-fraud laws to reach honest-services fraud.

The following year, Congress passed a law that said, in essence, "Oh, yes, we did." But while it restored honest-services fraud, it didn't define the term, so the contours of the crime remained as murky as ever.

Conflicting judicial review
In the 20 years since, many appeals courts have imposed interpretive glosses on the concept in an effort to curb its apparent boundlessness. Nevertheless, a significant minority of appeals judges remain hostile to it, viewing it as hopelessly vague and therefore unconstitutional.

Two of the most hostile have been judges E. Grady Jolly of Jackson, Miss., and Harold R. DeMoss Jr. of Houston, both of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Ten years ago, for instance, they reversed, over the dissent of a third judge, the garden-variety fraud conviction of a Texas state official, Michael Brumley. Giving the concept an extremely narrow reading, they found that it couldn't ever be used against state officials. The full appeals court then took the rare step of rehearing the case. They resoundingly reinstated the conviction, 14 to 3, with just one judge joining DeMoss and Jolly in dissent.

As luck had it, judges Jolly and DeMoss also wound up composing two-thirds of the panel assigned to hear the appeals in the Nigerian-barge case. There, prosecutors had charged that Enron officials' phony sale of the barge to inflate earnings had defrauded the company and its shareholders of honest services. Since the Merrill Lynch defendants knowingly aided this scheme, prosecutors argued, they were guilty as conspirators and abettors.

Too crooked to defraud
On Aug. 1, the panel rejected the government theory by a 2-to-1 vote. Judge Jolly, in an opinion joined by DeMoss, basically forged a brand new limitation on honest-services fraud, which I'll call the too-crooked-to-defraud rule.

Since high Enron officials like CFO Andrew Fastow were in on the scheme, and since their bonuses were linked to quarterly earnings results, Enron wasn't defrauded, Jolly said.

"The employer itself," he wrote, "created among its employees an understanding of its interest that, however benighted ... was thought to be furthered by a scheme involving a fiduciary breach." (In a separate opinion, Judge DeMoss added that honest-services fraud was unconstitutionally vague.)

The problem with Judge Jolly's theory, as dissenting judge Thomas Reavley noted, is that corporate executives are distinct from the corporation, which is owned by shareholders. Executives owe honest services to those shareholders, and one of the most basic is to report finances accurately.

Frankly, I don't expect the too-crooked-to-defraud rule to last very long, and I don't think the Enron Task Force should or could have foreseen its adoption. ....

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1191
Jolly, E. Grady
Born 1937 in Louisville, MS

Federal Judicial Service:
Judge, U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Nominated by Ronald Reagan on July 1, 1982, to a seat vacated by James Plemon Coleman; Confirmed by the Senate on July 27, 1982, and received commission on July 30, 1982.

With all due respect, the only things you have shared that have influenced you, is a preliminary reaction to an appeal argument from a judge, Jolly Grady, who has a history of incoherent, extreme rulings in other cases.... and a call from a politician for a pardon for the two convicted border patrol officers.....

ottopilot · 03-30-2008, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

You have posted, on another thread, a committed opinion contrary to the findings of the jury and the court in the criminal case, but you're now posting that you are not interested in a discussion about what should happen to the defendants, in light of your contrary opinion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

Libby absolutely lied under oath, etc. He should be in jail. The Ramos and Campean case (IMO) deserves a retrial (minimum) or a pardon. The two issues were raised for contrast ... if the border agents are guilty, send them back ... otherwise, I have no emotional attachment to this issue.

If you review my earlier post, I believe I already addressed what I believe should happen to the defendents. In my original post that you quoted (about Libby's pardon), I simply mentioned an example of where leniency may have been better served regarding individuals like the border agents instead of Libby. It will play out one way or another. If they are convicted in retrial, then lock 'em up.

I thought you would have been happy regarding my views on Scooter's conviction.

BTW - why haven't you voted?

host · 03-30-2008, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

If you review my earlier post, I believe I already addressed what I believe should happen to the defendents. In my original post that you quoted (about Libby's pardon), I simply mentioned an example of where leniency may have been better served regarding individuals like the border agents instead of Libby. It will play out one way or another. If they are convicted in retrial, then lock 'em up.

I thought you would have been happy regarding my views on Scooter's conviction.

BTW - why haven't you voted?

Why won't you share the sources that have influenced your support for a new trial for Compean and Ramos? When I post any opinion....this is a politics thread.... I strive to share the information that shapes my opinion. In sharing the information that shapes my opinion, not only my opinion is open to challenge, but the strength and accuracy of the influences on my opinion are open to challenge.

It's a transparent process. Rejecting the jury verdict and the sentence is a bold move.....there should be compelling reasons for adopting such a contrary stance. What have you got?

I am not voting....yet, because I have no dog in this fight. A lot of people are questioning the verdict and sentence in this case. I want to be shown what the influences were that convinced them to do so.

I don't see any concrete influences so far.....but a lot of people have been persuaded....so lets see some posts that point the rest of us to the sources of the "persuasion".....or is this a "feelings" based reaction to the verdict and the sentences?

smoore · 03-30-2008, 01:51 PM

re: Libby: did anyone expect any less? You don't have to be George Orwell to write the script for that play.

re: This thread: Those two got railroaded. I've been there and can sympathize. Number of shots fired, the assault on the BP agent not being reported, medical care for the smuggler on the taxpayers dime, etc etc etc. Too many fishy circumstances surround this case. I'm wondering who one of the two agents pissed off before this incident to warrant such a witch hunt.

How can a government wage a (misguided) "War on Drugs" and then complain when a combatant gets shot? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over. The Mexican people are great but their government is a corrupt piece of shit.

I wouldn't mind a pardon but would rather see a retrial. With a pardon there is always a cloud of suspicion. They deserve a fair trial and I don't think they got one the first time around.

dc_dux · 03-30-2008, 01:57 PM

If they used deadly force against policy.....if they tampered with evidence.....if they lied and did not report the shooting in a timely and correct manner....and as a result, a jury found them guilty......unless there was evidence that was not allowed to be presented, the sentence should stand.

You dont pardon or commute the sentence of law breakers because the "victim" was a "bad" guy.

And if you do, its purely political.

host · 03-30-2008, 02:20 PM

Thank you smoore, but....if you want to argue in favor of a new trial, much less a pardon, don't you have to impeach some or all of this:

Quote:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_...ramosfinal.pdf

RESPONSE OF THE GOVERNMENT TO REPORTING INACCURACIES
REGARDING THE COMPEAN AND RAMOS PROSECUTION

In response to misstatements and misinformation being reported in the media regarding the prosecution of Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean, relating to a shooting that occurred while they were on duty as U.S. Border Patrol agents on February 17, 2005, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas releases this advisory summarizing the evidence presented at defendants’ trial.
As will be demonstrated by the summary below, the defendants were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender by holding his open hands in the air, at which time Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of Compean’s shotgun, causing the man to run in fear of what the agents would do to him next. Although both agents saw that the man was not armed, the agents fired at least 15 rounds at him while he was running away from them, hitting him once.
On February 17, 2005, Border Patrol Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean were on duty along the U.S./Mexico border, working out of the Fabens Border Patrol Station. At approximately one o’clock in the afternoon, Agent Compean observed a van near the border about two and a half miles west of Fabens. According to the testimony, the driver of the van, Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, failed to yield to Agent Ramos’ attempt to stop him, jumped out of his vehicle and attempted to run back to Mexico. After Ramos told Aldrete-Davila to stop, Ramos drew his service revolver and pointed it at Aldrete-Davila. Aldrete-Davila jumped into a steep ditch filled with dirty water and when he tried to climb the steep incline out of the ditch, he was confronted by defendant Compean, waiting for him with a shotgun pointed directly at him. During his testimony, Compean acknowledged that at that time Aldrete-Davila held his hands up, as if to surrender, with his palms open, and no weapon was in either hand, or evident on his person. Another agent, who had arrived by this time and observed the scene, heard someone yell “hit him.” Aldrete-Davila, who was at one time a legal resident alien of the United States and speaks some English, also heard someone yell “hit him, hit him,” and specifically heard Compean yell: “Parate, parate, Mexicano de mierda.” (“Stop, stop you Mexican shit.”) According to testimony, Compean swung his shotgun around in an attempt to hit Aldrete-Davila with the butt of his weapon, but lost his footing and fell face down into the dirt and brush. Aldrete-Davila began to run to the river. Agent Ramos also testified that when he saw Aldrete-Davila in the ditch, he had an opportunity to look at Aldrete-Davila’s hands, which he is trained to do for self defense and defense of another, and did not see any weapons in either of Aldrete-Davila’s hands. When Aldrete-Davila almost reached the river, but while he was still out in the open vega area, he heard numerous gun shots. Compean fired at Aldrete-Davila at least fourteen times and Ramos fired at Aldrete-Davila once. Aldrete-Davila felt a sting in his left buttock and fell to the ground. When he reached for the location of the pain, his hand came away bloody. Fearing the shooters were about to reach his location and kill him, he turned his head and saw the two defendants holster their weapons, turn away from him and walk back north. He got up, limped to the river and returned to Mexico where he sought medical attention and learned that the bullet had caused serious injury. The bullet remained lodged in his body, causing him pain and impeding his ability to walk, until extracted by a military physician in the United States. The bullet was removed in the United States because it was an important piece of evidence and because the law requires the government to render such assistance to victims. On March 16, 2006, the bullet extracted from Aldrete-Davila’s body was matched to the service weapon carried by defendant Ramos, evidencing that Ramos fired the shot that struck Aldrete-Davila.

Government Response / Compean and Ramos prosecution September 8, 2006 Page 2

At the time of the shooting, <h3>neither agent Compean nor agent Ramos knew that the van driven by Aldrete-Davila contained 743 pounds of marijuana.</h3> The evidence was un-controverted that, at the time the victim was shot, neither agent knew whether the driver was illegally in the United States or whether a crime had been committed. The only information they had was that the driver had failed to pull over to be identified.

According to the testimony of seven other Border Patrol agents who arrived at the scene of the incident after the shooting, neither Compean nor Ramos mentioned that the driver who absconded had a gun, or that any agent’s life was in danger. Defendant Compean repeatedly denied that he had been injured by the driver and refused the supervisor’s offer to file a Report of Assault on his behalf.
At the scene, Ramos told a supervisor that as the suspect fled from the vehicle, agent Compean was on the levee attempting to apprehend him. Defendant Ramos said that as the suspect tried to flee Compean either tried to grab the suspect, or did a “side to side” movement, but fell to the ground and got dirt in his eyes. Ramos did not mention the shooting, and said nothing about the suspect having a weapon. At the scene, when asked why he was so excited, Ramos told another agent that it was just the adrenalin that had him all pumped up.
An agent who encountered defendant Compean a short time later, away from the scene of the incident, testified that Compean told him, “That little bitch took me to the ground and threw dirt in my face.” Compean did not indicate that he felt threatened, that his life was in danger, or that the driver had a weapon at any time. Compean did show the agent nine shell casings that he had collected at the scene and indicated he was “probably missing five more casings.” Compean told the agent he had “fired some rounds...did a magazine exchange and fired some more rounds,” and asked the agent to look for the additional casings. The agent proceeded to the scene of the shooting, located the additional five casings, threw them into the drainage ditch and called defendant Compean, using his cellular telephone, to tell him he had found five rounds and threw them away. The removal of the shell casings from the scene made it impossible to do a complete investigation of the shooting.

According to written Border Patrol policy, an agent who discharges his firearm at anytime, including off duty or by accident, must report the discharge to a supervisor within one hour. Both defendants Compean and Ramos had attended firearms refresher training which includes a review of this policy the day before the incident. Border Patrol policy also requires that the scene of a shooting be preserved so that the Sector Evidence Team may examine the evidence and file a written report detailing their findings so that a determination can be made of whether the discharge was justified. Evidence presented at trial indicated that, in the entire time of the defendants’ employment as Border Patrol agents, every reported shooting had been ruled justified and no agent was disciplined as a result of a shooting. Defendant Ramos is a trained member of the Sector Evidence Team and a firearms instructor who teaches the discharge policy.
Testimony elicited at trial clearly established that, until an investigation began at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Department of Homeland Security-Office of the Inspector General on March 4, 2005, no written report had been filed, no oral report had been made, and no person in any official capacity was cognizant of the fact that a shooting had occurred or a firearm had been discharged by any Border Patrol Agent in the direction of an individual fleeing into Mexico after having failed to stop for immigration status identification on February 17, 2005. The only report of any law enforcement activity on file for the Fabens Border Patrol Station on that date was an Immigration and Naturalization form I-44, Report of Apprehension or Seizure, authored by both defendants and signed by Jose Alonso Compean. The very brief report stated that after the driver of the van failed to pull over for an immigration check: “The driver of the van began driving back south towards Mexico. The driver was able to abscond into Mexico.” The report, admitted into evidence, then indicated that immediately after the driver absconded, defendant Ramos spotted the bags of marijuana in the van. No written report exists that indicates that defendant Compean was assaulted by the driver, tussled with the driver, was threatened by the driver’s actions or thought the driver had a gun. Both supervisors who arrived at the scene, after the incident was over, repeatedly asked defendant Compean if he was assaulted or injured and if he wished for them to file a Report of Assault-Service Employees, which is routinely completed if an agent reports being assaulted by a suspect. Compean did not wish such a report to be filed.....

....This office did not prosecute the defendants because they had violated Border Patrol policies. They were prosecuted because they had fired their weapons at a man who had attempted to surrender, but, while his open hands were held in the air, Agent Compean attempted to hit the man with the butt of his shotgun. In fear of what the agents would do to him next, the man ran away from the agents, who then fired at least 15 rounds at him, although they had seen his open hands and knew that he was not holding a weapon and had no reason to think that he had a weapon, hitting him once causing serious bodily injury. The references to policies are made only to demonstrate that had the had the defendants believed that the shooting was justified, there was no reason for them to conceal it from supervisors and remove evidence from the scene. The laws of the United States make it a crime for law enforcement officers to use excessive force in apprehending suspects. It is a violation of any person’s Constitutional rights to shoot at them after they have attempted to surrender, knowing that they are unarmed and pose no danger to the officers or anyone else.....

ottopilot · 03-30-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

If they used deadly force against policy.....if they tampered with evidence.....if they lied and did not report the shooting in a timely and correct manner....and as a result, a jury found them guilty......unless there was evidence that was not allowed to be presented, the sentence should stand.

You dont pardon or commute the sentence of law breakers because the "victim" was a "bad" guy.

And if you do, its purely political.

I agree. I've said as much. But the history of the individual (IMO) should have been allowed for consideration in the trial for context.

dc_dux · 03-30-2008, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

I agree. I've said as much. But the history of the individual (IMO) should have been allowed for consideration in the trial for context.

There are specific and limited judicial justifications for Appeals Courts to grant new trials....and, as far as I know, the history of the "victim" in this case does not meet those standards.

Did the judge act improperly?

Was material evidence improperly withheld by the prosecution?

I am still looking for a compelling legal argument that the lower court committed a "reversible error."

smoore · 03-30-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Thank you smoore, but....if you want to argue in favor of a new trial, much less a pardon, don't you have to impeach some or all of this:

I don't think I do. That's the government's version. The Agent's version is very different. I'm saying there is enough he said/she said that I'd like to see the lawyers get them a new trial.

I wish I could see the transcripts of the case but have yet to find any of them. The right wing blogs all claim the doctor that removed the bullet testified that the injury would support the defendant's claim the victim was turned around pointing his left hand behind him.

It's such a contentious issue the govt. really should release all of the documents to the public but apparently they can't when a retrial is a possibility. I don't quite understand that, I guess it has to do with jury selection.

ottopilot · 03-30-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

There are specific judicial reasons for Appeals Courts to grant new trials....and the history of the "victim" does not meet those standards.

Did the judge act improperly?

Was material evidence improperly withheld by the prosecution?

What are the specific standards and how do you know they were or were not met? The case must also be properly categorized for the determination of correct standards to apply.

The judge may have been prejudiced and it's not uncommon to allow appeals for much less controversial outcomes. I believe the prosecutor (Sutton) has knowingly withheld critical information. The conditions under which the case was brought were (IMO) also very questionable. The "victim" was a known drug runner and violent gang member. The violent history of the drug runner should be included regarding how border agents might respond in potentially violent confrontational situations. The evidence, shell casings, etc. were addressed by their superior and was provided to the FBI in deposition, but not allowed as evidence. Their were contradictory eyewitness accounts of the events, several Mexicans sided with the drug runner. Again, all deposed statements were not considered.

I will locate this info and share for your consideration as soon as I can. It shouldn't be too hard to dig up.

dc_dux · 03-30-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoore

I don't think I do. That's the government's version. The Agent's version is very different. I'm saying there is enough he said/she said that I'd like to see the lawyers get them a new trial.

Arent defendent's (in this case, the agent) versions nearly always different than the government's in criminal cases?

I dont think that is a basis for a new trial.

host · 03-30-2008, 03:21 PM

It seems that the negative attitude towards the shooting victim trumps the details of the shooting and the attempt to conceal it. The prosecution informed the court that they trial would be delayed because of the discovery, sometime after the shooting, that the victim's urethera had been severed, and that a US government hospital would perform surgery to attempt to reattach it, but that this was delayed because of the Iraq war related workload of the hospital.....

The shooting victim was apparently someone who smuggled marijuana into the US in volume, and the US Attorney claimed that Compean and Ramos only knew, before shooting at him, that he had failed to stop his vehicle, earlier, when directed to by other officers, and that Ramos and Compean could not have known that there was any illegal cargo in the victim's van.

US LEO went to Mexico, found the victim, promising him immunity from charges related to his activity at the time of the shooting. They also promised him, in exchange for his testimony, medical treatment in the US for his bullet wound. A bullet was extracted from his body by a US doctor, and I read that Ramos's defense attorney and the prosecution stipulated that the recovered bullet cam from Ramos's weapon.

If the victim had died from the shooting, and the bullet had been recovered from his corpse, is there anyone who can post how, based on the bullet evidence and on the testimony of other witnesses, how the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to defendants Compean and Ramos.

Didn't they forfeit their claim that they thought the victim had a gun in his hand when they were shooting at him...because, after they shot him, they left him for dead, removed evidence from the scene, persuaded at least one fellow officer to hunt for and also remove evidence, and by failing to report that they had fired their weapons?

dc_dux · 03-30-2008, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottopilot

The judge may have been prejudiced and it's not uncommon to allow appeals for much less controversial outcomes. I believe the prosecutor (Sutton) has knowingly withheld critical information. The conditions under which the case was brought were (IMO) also very questionable. The "victim" was a known drug runner and violent gang member. The violent history of the drug runner should be included regarding how border agents might respond in potentially violent confrontational situations. The evidence, shell casings, etc. were addressed by their superior and was provided to the FBI in deposition, but not allowed as evidence. Their were contradictory eyewitness accounts of the events, several Mexicans sided with the drug runner. Again, all deposed statements were not considered.

I will locate this info and share for your consideration as soon as I can. It shouldn't be too hard to dig up.

Otto.....if what you suggest is correct, I would consider changing my vote (wait, I didnt vote).

But the only places I have seen such information is on right wing blogs...hardly an unimpeachable, unbiased source (please consider that when you bring it up)

smoore · 03-30-2008, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Arent defendent's (in this case, the agent) versions nearly always different than the government's in criminal cases?

I dont think that is a basis for a new trial.

But they have eyewitnesses and supposed medical evidence to back them up. If their lawyers can't get a court to re hear it then I'll be satisfied.

If they don't get a new trial then from what I understand all of the evidence can be brought into the public record and we will have lawyers and law students pouring over it for years.

dc_dux · 03-30-2008, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoore

But they have eyewitnesses and supposed medical evidence to back them up. If their lawyers can't get a court to re hear it then I'll be satisfied.

smoore....the only places I have seen reports of these eyewitnesses and supposed medical evidence are on right wing blogs.... the same blogs that have evidence that Hillary murdered Vince Foster after sleeping with him.

All the information I have seen to date point to the arguments being political and not judicial.

host · 03-30-2008, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoore

But they have eyewitnesses and supposed medical evidence to back them up. If their lawyers can't get a court to re hear it then I'll be satisfied.

If they don't get a new trial then from what I understand all of the evidence can be brought into the public record and we will have lawyers and law students pouring over it for years.

Can you post where we can read about any of this evidence?

I am very unsuccessful at persuading anyone on this forum who already is not inclined to agree with me...OF ANYTHING....no matter how many facts and details I post in support.

I know that I have something to learn from this....at least 400,000 people signed a petition to request a pardon for these two convicts.....based on..."what"? What is so persuasive that it contradicts the investigation results, the prosecution claims, the jury verdict, and the judges sentencing?

How can we ever dicuss anything, if we cannot even see how people come to "know what they know"?

smoore · 03-30-2008, 03:47 PM

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?

host · 03-30-2008, 04:52 PM

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!

smoore · 03-30-2008, 05:13 PM

Woh, cool doj link. You guys find the best stuff on the 'net. I'm going to go read through it, I found one uroligists testimony, don't know if it's the right one.

Yeah, pot is a narcotic. If it's not my favorite one it's in the top two

narcotic

• noun 1 an addictive drug, especially an illegal one, affecting mood or behaviour. 2 Medicine a drug which induces drowsiness, stupor, or insensibility and relieves pain.

in the medical sense, of course.

Yeah, they were probably profiling him but not in a racial way. They saw a van that started fleeing. If I were a cop I would instantly profile the driver of that van as a "bad guy".

Don't get me wrong, the War on Drugs is a hoax and a horrible waste of resources. Imagine how many more violent predators we could lock away if we would only let out the potheads. Violence associated with weed seems to be only because of it's association with a criminal element.

"Pot never made me take my pants off at the bar!"

OK, off to read those transcripts some more, thanks for linking them.

edit: haha, the prosecution has a sense of humor!

7 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about continence. What's --
8 I think everybody here knows what an erection is. What is
9 continence?

Volume 9, pg 200:

13 Q. And that line is not straight behind him. That line goes
14 off in this direction, to the left, correct?
15 A. Unless the person was turned, as you mentioned.
16 Q. Exactly.
17 A. Or if the person was running, you know, that would -- like
18 you mentioned -- his limb being in a different position, that
19 could change the -- where the bullet would have had to come
20 from.
21 Q. Right. So what you really just mean is that the shooter is
22 facing the rear of the person at some angle?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. And you can't tell what that angle is?
25 A. I can't tell.
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Warme - Recross by Mr. Peters 201
1 Q. And this is consistent with a person turning around and
2 pointing back at the shooter?
3 A. I said that's possible.
4 Q. You can't rule it out?
5 A. I cannot rule it out.

This is what all of the fuss is about. Based on this testimony the person had turned around while running when he got shot or the shooter was off to his left which no one is testifying to.

host · 03-30-2008, 09:38 PM

This is a link
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/txw/press_...olume%2013.pdf

to the prosecutor's cross-examination of Ignacio Ramos, he fired one shot, it hit the victim, and then he admits he did not secure the post shooting scene and did not report the shooting to either supervisor who arrived a short time later, even though he testifies that he told one supervisor that the man they were chasing had thrown dirt into Compean's face, then he admits he did not see that happen.

Warning.....the transcript is looooonnnnng....these are just two excerpts:

Quote:

Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof (page) 69

1 A. Yes, ma'am.
2 Q. And you think he's been shot?
3 A. After hearing the gunshots, and being on the floor, it was
4 my presumption, yes, ma'am.
5 Q. And you don't yell, Are you shot?
6 A. No.
7 Q. You don't yell, Are you hit?
8 A. No.
9 Q. You don't yell, Are you okay?
10 A. No. The threat was still in the vega. If I stopped to
11 help him, I'm leaving myself vulnerable.
12 Q. Right. Didn't -- okay.
13 You don't learn, in defensive tactic school, that if a
14 partner is down the first thing you do is go to that partner?
15 A. I don't believe so, ma'am. If I go to that partner and the
16 threat is still in that vega, I'm leaving myself vulnerable.
17 That means two agents go down.
18 Q. Didn't -- didn't Chief Barker testify that the single most
19 important thing was the safety of the agent?
20 A. Yes, ma'am. But I can't take care of that agent if that
21 threat turns around and hurts me.
22 Q. Well, you could go and put your body in between that threat
23 and the agent, couldn't you?
24 A. And that's what I did when I ran after him.
25 Q. You didn't go protect him, did you?
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 70

1 A. I was doing that when I ran after him, yes, ma'am.
2 Q. Well, you said this vega was a very dangerous place, right?
3 A. Yes. I've been there before.
4 Q. There's bushes where people can hide?
5 A. Not in the vega, on the riverbank.
6 Q. Well, along the riverbank, there are?
7 A. Yes, ma'am.
8 Q. But you said the vega is a very dangerous place.
9 A. Yes, ma'am. We were still exposed. The threat was still
10 there.
11 Q. And, instead of protecting him from any other threat, you
12 wanted to catch it, right?
13 A. At that point I wanted to catch him because, in my mind, he
14 had hurt Agent Compean.
15 Q. Without even asking Agent Compean?
16 A. He was down. I mean, I assumed.
17 Q. Well, Agent Compean, in his written statement, as testified
18 to by Chris Sanchez, says he was standing in the vega shooting.
19 A. I didn't see him standing.
20 Q. He said he holstered his weapon and then walked back up to
21 levee.
22 A. That may have been after I passed him. When I saw Agent
23 Compean -- I passed him. I didn't stand right next to him.
24 Q. Oh. After you passed him, he got up, then holstered his
25 weapon, and turned around and walked up the vega. Is that what
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 71

1 you're saying could have happened?
2 A. I don't know what Agent Compean did after I passed him.
3 Q. I thought you said you went back and got him up, because he
4 was in shock --
5 A. No.
6 Q. -- and you patted him down.
7 A. No. I'm telling you, after I passed Agent Compean, I
8 chased the suspect.
9 Q. Okay. You did not, like you did in 1996, call out, Fire,
10 fire, did you?
11 A. No, ma'am.
12 Q. You didn't call out, Agent down, correct?
13 A. No, ma'am.
14 Q. You knew there were a bunch of agents right behind you, and
15 you didn't even try to communicate to them to go save your
16 partner, correct?
17 A. No, ma'am, because I expected them to be right behind me.
18 Q. You expected it?
19 A. Yes, ma'am, I did. They should have been right behind me
20 in the vega.
21 Q. And you didn't call out, Fire, fire, so they would know
22 that your partner had been injured, and they should be careful
23 about a gun?
24 A. I expected them right behind me in the vega. I expected
25 one of them to call it out. That's why I didn't get on the
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 72

1 radio. There was more than enough of us for somebody to get on
2 the vega. I knew I was the first one through the ditch.
3 Q. Agent Compean's in shock, right?
4 A. Well, I'm not a medical doctor, but...
5 Q. But you were willing to testify to it on direct?
6 A. Well, to me, he looked like he was in shock.
7 Q. Okay. You have -- you don't have medical training?
8 A. No.
9 Q. The vega is a dangerous place, and you're running after the
10 driver, right?
11 A. Yes, ma'am.
12 Q. Okay. How far did you get before you saw this shiny object
13 in his left hand?
14 A. How far did I get where?
15 Q. Chasing him down the vega.
16 A. I must have ran -- well, past the little drag road, 15, 20
17 feet, when I yelled, Parete, and he turned around.
18 Q. Okay. You yelled, Parete, and he turned around?
19 A. Yes, ma'am.
20 Q. And was it at this time that he was, with his left hand,
21 pointing something at you that was shiny?
22 A. Yes, ma'am.
23 Q. Okay. Why didn't you shoot him then?
24 A. Because he made an overt threat at me.
25 Q. Why didn't you shoot him then?
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 73

1 A. Oh, why didn't I shoot?
2 Q. Right.
3 A. I shot at him at that time.
4 Q. Okay. You shot at him while he was still on the vega?
5 A. He was at the lip of the riverbank.
6 Q. Well, just a minute ago you said he was on the vega.
7 A. He was running in the vega. I was still running --
8 Q. He was running and turning around and shooting all at the
9 same time?
10 A. No, I didn't say he was running and shooting at the same
11 time.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. I didn't say he turned around until I yelled, Parete.
14 Q. Okay. So he only turned around once, then?
15 A. I only yelled Parete one time. That's when he made the
16 gesture at me.
17 Q. Okay. And you shot him and he fell?
18 A. I didn't say he fell.
19 Q. So you didn't think you shot him?
20 A. No, I didn't.
21 Q. And you didn't keep shooting at him?
22 A. I shot one time.
23 Q. Well, the threat is still there, isn't it?
24 A. He disappeared.
25 Q. He disappeared?......
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR

....4 Q. When you checked Mr. Compean, you found out he had not been
5 shot, correct?
6 A. Right. Right.
7 Q. But you're still there, the two of you, watching him limp
8 back to the Mexican vega, correct?
9 A. I didn't say he was limping back.
10 Q. Walking back?
11 A. Walking back.
12 Q. He wasn't jogging or running?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Wasn't turning around trying to shoot you?
15 A. No, he was just walking back.
16 Q. And when he got to the Mexican levee, you said that, at
17 that distance, he would not have been accurate, correct?
18 A. I don't believe so.
19 Q. How do you know?
20 A. I don't even think I can be accurate at that distance, not
21 with a handgun. That's why I said he didn't have a rifle in
22 his hand.
23 Q. So you didn't feel a need to take cover?
24 A. By that time we were up on our levee.
25 Q. And you didn't tell Yrigoyen or Mendez, That guy had a gun?
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 81

1 A. When Yrigoyen and Mendez got there, he was already over the
2 Mexican levee.
3 Q. But Yrigoyen and Mendez could see him, correct?
4 A. I think they testified they didn't see him until he was way
5 past the Mexican levee.
6 Q. But they see him being picked up by people that you-all
7 assume were Mexican drug dealers, correct?
8 A. I guess that's what they said.
9 Q. And you had no fear, and didn't feel the need to warn the
10 people that were standing next to you?
11 A. The threat was gone.
12 Q. So you don't see him picking up casings when he's coming up
13 the levee, correct?
14 A. No.
15 Q. And you get to the top of the levee?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. You hear Jonathan Richards call out to Mr. Compean, Are you
18 okay? Right?
19 A. That was when I had already crossed back to the north side.
20 And this was after I had already told Mr. Richards.
21 Q. That he threw dirt in his face?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Even though you didn't see that?
24 A. Right.
25 Q. And you did not tell -- you had two supervisors there at
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 82

1 the scene, right?
2 A. Right.
3 Q. And you didn't tell either of them, according to the
4 policy, that you discharged your firearm?
5 A. No.
6 Q. And neither did Mr. Compean?
7 A. No.
8 Q. If you had, one of these thick reports would have been
9 generated, right?
10 A. I guess so.
11 Q. And they would have tried to determine whether or not it
12 was a good shoot?
13 A. I guess so.
14 Q. And the reason you didn't report it is because you knew it
15 wasn't a good shoot?
16 A. No. I just messed up.
17 Q. You just messed up?
18 A. I was just worried about a lot of other things. I was full
19 of adrenaline from chasing him. I was full of adrenaline from
20 being threatened again, from having shot the pistol. I was
21 worried about Mr. Compean. I had a lot of other things on my
22 mind.
23 Q. An hour later, as well? You were still so full of
24 adrenaline that you couldn't remember to report the shooting an
25 hour later? You have a whole hour, right?
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR
Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 83

1 A. Right.
2 Q. Okay. So, an hour later, you were still so full of
3 adrenaline that you forgot to report it?
4 A. No. I just made the assumption I shouldn't have.
5 Q. Well, what assumption is it that you made, again?
6 A. That somebody else had told him.
7 Q. But if somebody else had told him, wouldn't he have come
8 and asked you about it?
9 A. I guess he would have.
10 Q. So then you could have made the assumption that somebody
11 hasn't told him, correct?
12 A. I guess so.
13 Q. You testified that you think your shell casing is still out
14 there, right? Is that correct?
15 A. Maybe, after all this time. I don't know.
16 Q. Well, you went out to look for it, didn't you?
17 A. No, I didn't.
18 Q. Well, you've been out to that scene a couple of times,
19 haven't you?
20 A. With my attorney.
21 Q. Well, you weren't with your attorney the Friday before last
22 when you went out there, were you?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So you went out to that scene on occasion, have you not?
25 A. Just once.
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR

Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 84
1 Q. You were looking for your casing?
2 A. No, I was not.
3 Q. Okay. This is what the firearms policy calls a reportable
4 shooting, correct?
5 A. I believe so.
6 Q. Well, you taught it for five years. If you don't remember,
7 I can give you the policy to refresh your memory.
8 A. Yes, ma'am.
9 Q. It is a reportable shooting?
10 A. Yes, ma'am.
11 Q. And when there's a reportable shooting, the first thing
12 you're supposed to do is secure the scene, correct?
13 A. I believe so.
14 Q. You didn't secure the scene?
15 A. No.
16 Q. You are also educated, as a sector evidence team member,
17 correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You went to sector evidence school?
20 A. Many years ago.
21 Q. So you forgot about it since then?
22 A. It's been a long time. I never applied any of what I was
23 trained in that.
24 Q. Well, regardless of whether you've gone to evidence school,
25 every agent is told that, if there is a crime scene, they need
David A. Perez, CSR, RPR

Ramos - Cross by Ms. Kanof 85
1 to not touch it, right?
2 A. I don't know if every agent is told that.
3 Q. You weren't told that in Quantico?
4 A. I never went to Quantico, ma'am.
5 Q. FLETC, whenever you went?
6 Sorry, you're not an FBI agent. FLETC? That's
7 F-L-E-T-C.
8 A. I don't remember ever being told that. I -- I can't be
9 certain, no, ma'am.
10 Q. Okay. But you did get evidence response training?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. You didn't secure the scene, did you?
13 A. No.
14 Q. You didn't make a call to ask for the evidence team to come
15 out, did you?
16 A. No.
17 Q. You didn't notify sector communications that you needed a
18 SET team, correct?
19 A. No.
20 Q. The SET commander didn't come out to check to see whether
21 or not they needed to do an investigation, did they?
22 A. No.
23 Q. So, therefore, nobody took custody of your weapons at the
24 scene, correct?
25 A. No.

My impression was that Ramos was not believable..... I don't understand how a jury could come to any other conclusion than that he knew he couldn't defend his decision to fire his weapon, so instead he attempted to conceal the fact that he did. He also gave the impression that he was not fit to be a border patrol officer, a man familiar with regulations and giving sworn testimony in court during an eleven year career.

His overall response on the witness stand was so evasive and contradictory that it seemed shameful to me.....how did this confused, unethical, and ignorant man survive in a job as a sworn officer in a specialized field for eleven years?

Anyone who advocates for addtional "justice" for Ramos, either has not examined the transcript, or is not interested in learning the details of the case, IMO. It is so blatant and obvious why Ramos and Compean did not report their shooting activity, I feel like I wasted my time, looking into the trial testimony.

smoore · 03-30-2008, 10:45 PM

What in that testimony tells you he did wrong? I did read all of it and I don't see a discrepancy between the defendant's position and the testimony.

I'm no cop fanboy but it sounds like just another day in the life. These guys get shot at and they respond in kind.

edit: I reread your post. So your position is that an 11 year veteran of the Border Patrol decided to gun down a victim in cold blood? Throw everything away to kill a Mexican for fun/sport/revenge/whatever? Why would he do that?

Of course he could be a career abuser but there is no evidence of this happening. The guy is clean up until now. No beatings, no sodomy and no shootings.

I've had my share of "contact" with LEOs and I can spot a dirty cop from a mile away. This guy doesn't seem dirty to me. Of course I could be wrong but I doubt it.

host · 03-31-2008, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoore

.....Of course he could be a career abuser but there is no evidence of this happening. The guy is clean up until now. No beatings, no sodomy and no shootings.

I've had my share of "contact" with LEOs and I can spot a dirty cop from a mile away. This guy doesn't seem dirty to me. Of course I could be wrong but I doubt it.

The two officers made the decision not to secure the site and have their supervisor call in a shooting investigation team. It was brought out in the cross examination of officer Ramos that he never called "fire !" into his radio, and never warned other arriving officers, before or after he fired a shot at the fleeing suspect, that he thought he saw a weapon in the suspect's hand. In every way that the information that Ramos and Compean fired shots at the suspect because they thought they saw a weapon in his hand, and thus, feared for their personal safety, could have routinely come from them....over the radio microphone clipped to their uniform shirt, or via direct verbal communication to arriving officers, or finally, via orally reporting the discharging of their weapons to supervisors, they chose not to communicate.

Later, they came up with assertions that they thought the suspect running away from them had something in his hand, something shiny, possibly a weapon.....

And by the way....why is this forum so dysfunctional that a discussion about this controversy, like the one here:
http://patterico.com/2007/12/03/ramo...gument-update/

....does not take place?

The_Jazz · 03-31-2008, 08:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

And by the way....why is this forum so dysfunctional that a discussion about this controversy, like the one here:
http://patterico.com/2007/12/03/ramo...gument-update/

....does not take place?

Because that's a blog and this is an internet forum with a multitude of interests. And this is an internet forum that's grown so stale that even casual observers can look at a given topic's title and guess with a high degree of accuracy who will post there and what their posts will say.

Not that any of this is your fault, host (any more than it is any other member), but TFPolitics isn't dysfunction, just incredibly predictable.

dc_dux · 03-31-2008, 02:55 PM

At best, reading the trial transcript (I admit I havent) may result in having a different interpretation of the testimony, even though the jury had the benefit of being there in person.

But we dont grant appeals based on the popularity of a jury's decision.

I have yet to see anything that addresses the issue of "reversible" error on the part of the court that provides legal justification for an appeal.

View Poll Results: Were Compean & Ramos fairly tried, convicted and sentenced?
I want President Bush to pardon Compean and Ramos	2	33.33%
I want the appeals court to grant Compean and Ramos a new trial.	2	33.33%
I suspect that Compean and Ramos received a fair trail and sentence for their crimes.	2	33.33%
I suspect that supporters of Compean & Ramos have bought into a disinfo "Op"	0	0%
Voters: 6. You may not vote on this poll

03-30-2008, 01:51 PM	#6 (permalink)
smoore Crazy Location: West of Denver	re: Libby: did anyone expect any less? You don't have to be George Orwell to write the script for that play. re: This thread: Those two got railroaded. I've been there and can sympathize. Number of shots fired, the assault on the BP agent not being reported, medical care for the smuggler on the taxpayers dime, etc etc etc. Too many fishy circumstances surround this case. I'm wondering who one of the two agents pissed off before this incident to warrant such a witch hunt. How can a government wage a (misguided) "War on Drugs" and then complain when a combatant gets shot? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Over. The Mexican people are great but their government is a corrupt piece of shit. I wouldn't mind a pardon but would rather see a retrial. With a pardon there is always a cloud of suspicion. They deserve a fair trial and I don't think they got one the first time around. __________________ smoore

03-30-2008, 01:57 PM	#7 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	If they used deadly force against policy.....if they tampered with evidence.....if they lied and did not report the shooting in a timely and correct manner....and as a result, a jury found them guilty......unless there was evidence that was not allowed to be presented, the sentence should stand. You dont pardon or commute the sentence of law breakers because the "victim" was a "bad" guy. And if you do, its purely political. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

03-30-2008, 03:47 PM	#19 (permalink)
smoore Crazy Location: West of Denver	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? __________________ smoore

03-30-2008, 05:13 PM	#21 (permalink)
smoore Crazy Location: West of Denver	Woh, cool doj link. You guys find the best stuff on the 'net. I'm going to go read through it, I found one uroligists testimony, don't know if it's the right one. Yeah, pot is a narcotic. If it's not my favorite one it's in the top two narcotic • noun 1 an addictive drug, especially an illegal one, affecting mood or behaviour. 2 Medicine a drug which induces drowsiness, stupor, or insensibility and relieves pain. in the medical sense, of course. Yeah, they were probably profiling him but not in a racial way. They saw a van that started fleeing. If I were a cop I would instantly profile the driver of that van as a "bad guy". Don't get me wrong, the War on Drugs is a hoax and a horrible waste of resources. Imagine how many more violent predators we could lock away if we would only let out the potheads. Violence associated with weed seems to be only because of it's association with a criminal element. "Pot never made me take my pants off at the bar!" OK, off to read those transcripts some more, thanks for linking them. edit: haha, the prosecution has a sense of humor! 7 Q. Okay. Let's talk a little bit about continence. What's -- 8 I think everybody here knows what an erection is. What is 9 continence? Volume 9, pg 200: 13 Q. And that line is not straight behind him. That line goes 14 off in this direction, to the left, correct? 15 A. Unless the person was turned, as you mentioned. 16 Q. Exactly. 17 A. Or if the person was running, you know, that would -- like 18 you mentioned -- his limb being in a different position, that 19 could change the -- where the bullet would have had to come 20 from. 21 Q. Right. So what you really just mean is that the shooter is 22 facing the rear of the person at some angle? 23 A. That's correct. 24 Q. And you can't tell what that angle is? 25 A. I can't tell. David A. Perez, CSR, RPR Warme - Recross by Mr. Peters 201 1 Q. And this is consistent with a person turning around and 2 pointing back at the shooter? 3 A. I said that's possible. 4 Q. You can't rule it out? 5 A. I cannot rule it out. This is what all of the fuss is about. Based on this testimony the person had turned around while running when he got shot or the shooter was off to his left which no one is testifying to. __________________ smoore Last edited by smoore; 03-30-2008 at 05:41 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

03-30-2008, 03:21 PM	#14 (permalink)
host Banned	It seems that the negative attitude towards the shooting victim trumps the details of the shooting and the attempt to conceal it. The prosecution informed the court that they trial would be delayed because of the discovery, sometime after the shooting, that the victim's urethera had been severed, and that a US government hospital would perform surgery to attempt to reattach it, but that this was delayed because of the Iraq war related workload of the hospital..... The shooting victim was apparently someone who smuggled marijuana into the US in volume, and the US Attorney claimed that Compean and Ramos only knew, before shooting at him, that he had failed to stop his vehicle, earlier, when directed to by other officers, and that Ramos and Compean could not have known that there was any illegal cargo in the victim's van. US LEO went to Mexico, found the victim, promising him immunity from charges related to his activity at the time of the shooting. They also promised him, in exchange for his testimony, medical treatment in the US for his bullet wound. A bullet was extracted from his body by a US doctor, and I read that Ramos's defense attorney and the prosecution stipulated that the recovered bullet cam from Ramos's weapon. If the victim had died from the shooting, and the bullet had been recovered from his corpse, is there anyone who can post how, based on the bullet evidence and on the testimony of other witnesses, how the outcome of the trial would have been more favorable to defendants Compean and Ramos. Didn't they forfeit their claim that they thought the victim had a gun in his hand when they were shooting at him...because, after they shot him, they left him for dead, removed evidence from the scene, persuaded at least one fellow officer to hunt for and also remove evidence, and by failing to report that they had fired their weapons?

03-30-2008, 10:45 PM	#23 (permalink)
smoore Crazy Location: West of Denver	Wow dude. What in that testimony tells you he did wrong? I did read all of it and I don't see a discrepancy between the defendant's position and the testimony. I'm no cop fanboy but it sounds like just another day in the life. These guys get shot at and they respond in kind. edit: I reread your post. So your position is that an 11 year veteran of the Border Patrol decided to gun down a victim in cold blood? Throw everything away to kill a Mexican for fun/sport/revenge/whatever? Why would he do that? Of course he could be a career abuser but there is no evidence of this happening. The guy is clean up until now. No beatings, no sodomy and no shootings. I've had my share of "contact" with LEOs and I can spot a dirty cop from a mile away. This guy doesn't seem dirty to me. Of course I could be wrong but I doubt it. __________________ smoore Last edited by smoore; 03-30-2008 at 10:49 PM..

03-31-2008, 02:55 PM	#26 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	At best, reading the trial transcript (I admit I havent) may result in having a different interpretation of the testimony, even though the jury had the benefit of being there in person. But we dont grant appeals based on the popularity of a jury's decision. I have yet to see anything that addresses the issue of "reversible" error on the part of the court that provides legal justification for an appeal. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire