Bush commutes sentences of former US border agents

[The Big Dog]

Jan 23, 2009 12:08:04 GMT -5 ferrous said:

The Bullshit phrase was in response from your lack of information in determining whether these two men got a fair trial. I have not nor will I more than likely plow through the volumes of legal text of this trial. I have neither the time nor inclination.

I did have the time and the inclination. I've been following this case closely since very early on.

You, on the other hand, that have claimed you have proof of the validity of this case so far except in this last post had provided nothing... In other words when you tell us to run off with our tails between or legs because the your proof in undeniable and we must then plow through texts and transcripts to overturn something that even trained lawyers have not be able to do is a fallacious argument... ie bullshit argument.

Wow... there's a real rhetorical stretch. I'm wrong because you say I am when you freely admit you know nothing more about the case than what you've been fed by WND.

Brilliant argument, that.

Lets put the WND questions aside (although I will draw my own from them)...

Yes, lets.

Since no weapon from Davila was found, there is no way to determine whether he was armed or not. Since the "Burden of Proof" was up to the two border agents we have to rely on this technicality of the law and convict these two men. The irony is that Davila could have been armed and turning to brandishing a weapon when he was shot. Woulda been, coulda been, shoulda been... who really knows expert Ramos, Compean, and Davila know for sure.

Now you are starting to get it.

But in this case, because no weapon was found, the court ruled that Davila was unarmed...

Yep, the law is a pesky thing, isn't it? The defense could not prove Davila was armed. The court can not assume fact not in evidence. The defense was self defense, an affirmative defense, the agents asserted that Davila was armed. They could not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt so the court can only find that there was not justification for the use of deadly force.

In fact, defense counsel argued that regardless of the assertion of self defense in the scope of law enforcement duty, it was up to the government to prove that the actions of the two agents did not pass the "reasonableness test". Both the trial court and appellate court rejected that, and I think quite rightly. As LEOs they need to be held to a higher standard.

And considering that:

** Both were veteran officers with decades of service between them,
** Both had received use of force training including reviews of post shooting policy the day before the incident happened,
** One agent, Ramos, was not only a department firearms and use of force instructor, he also was on the evidence collection team which was (by policy) supposed to respond to the scene of any agent involved shooting. Ramos and Compean both admitted at trial of being well acquainted with the policy.
** They policed up their brass, hence tampered with the evidence of what the agency would treat as a potential crime scene. Ramos was an evidence tech and knew the policy, so why do that?
** Compean filed a false police report of the incident. Neither of them told thier immediate supervisor that they had fired fifteen shots between them when the supervisor arrived on scene shortly after the incident took place. Compean himself later told his sector chief that they both knew at the time that if they had reported the shooting as per policy, that they'd be in trouble.

So f they were soooooo right, as you and others assert, why would they deliberatley do so many wrong things?

Now. one more question... was Davila shot in the back or the side?

"Davila was wounded in the left buttocks, with the bullet traversing his groin, ending up lodged in his right thigh."

Back to WND, eh? What's your point? He was hit in the left buttcheek. Bullets in bodies do not always follow straight paths.

For what it's worth, the US Attorney's Office for that sector during the tenure of USA Johnny Sutton (who is regularly excoriated for railroading Ramos & Compean) investigated 14 seperate shootings involving Border Patrol agents prior to the Ramos & Compean incident. Four of those shootings involved fatality. Each and every one of those 14 shootings was found justified and no criminal charges were brought against the agents involved.

So then the 18th was a charm and they went after these two over humbug?

The facts brought forward in the trial and reviewed on appeal indicate otherwise. What you choose to believe is up to you. I am happy that Mr. Bush saw his way to commute their sentences as I believe that while they are certainly guilty of some serious crimes, that they the sentences did not fit, but since the court would have it's hands tied by the sentencing guidelines enacted by Congress, it was what it was.

Mr. Bush did the right thing. And I leave it at that.

[moondog]

Jan 21, 2009 20:22:14 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

You have got to be kidding! These boarder patrol agents shot the guy in the back while he was trying to flee. Drug dealing illegal immigrant or not, that is not right. Conservatives have stooped so low in requesting the release of a couple of murdering criminals, and for what? Just to make some useless point about illegal immigration? Bush has put an exclamation mark on his final boneheaded term. These agents should spend their lives in jail for the crime they committed.

Bigot. your assertion that only Conservatives are championing for this guy is a blatant attempt to smear Conservatives. Many advocates of stopping and removing illegal immigrants are for releasing these two and were against the prosecution. Your attempt to paint them all as conservative is a bigoted, divisive move designed to promote conflict. You are a bigot.

[saunterelle]

It is not bigoted to point out the truth. The only places I saw that were calling for the border patrol agents' release from prison was on Michael Savage's radio show, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and Bill O'Reilly's TV show. I heard all three try to use the excuse that the victim in this case was a drug smuggling illegal immigrant and therefore, they argued, the border patrol agents should be released.

I haven't followed this story too closely, but if you have left wing sources that called for their immediate release I would love to see them.

[moondog]

Jan 23, 2009 16:22:45 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

It is not bigoted to point out the truth. The only places I saw that were calling for the border patrol agents' release from prison was on Michael Savage's radio show, Rush Limbaugh's radio show, and Bill O'Reilly's TV show. I heard all three try to use the excuse that the victim in this case was a drug smuggling illegal immigrant and therefore, they argued, the border patrol agents should be released.

I haven't followed this story too closely, but if you have left wing sources that called for their immediate release I would love to see them.

I have heard people say they should be released. The people who said it were anti illegal immigration. Does that automatically make them conservative? Does that mean you are for illegal immigration? Does that mean all liberals are for illegal immigration?

You should rely less on what you hear from the media as a source to make your bigoted claims. You would be surprised to find out that you are not correct in your ignorant assertions that only conservatives were calling for the freedom of these two.

I may have at one point, but I have listened to what TBD has had to say on the subject, since he has vastly more knowledge of legal and illegal shoots then I do. I have been silent on the topic, until the statements of the dogmatist appeared. Then I had to reply to your dogmatism.

[saunterelle]

I am simply responding to what I have heard from the standard bearers of conservative media in our country.

I am strongly against illegal immigration (and wish Bush and the Republicans had secured our borders when they had the chance) but it makes me sick to see conservatives calling for the release of these two criminals simply because the person they shot was here illegally. What does that say about the way these conservatives value our laws?

[moondog]

Jan 23, 2009 17:13:41 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I am simply responding to what I have heard from the standard bearers of conservative media in our country.

I am strongly against illegal immigration (and wish Bush and the Republicans had secured our borders when they had the chance) but it makes me sick to see conservatives calling for the release of these two criminals simply because the person they shot was here illegally. What does that say about the way these conservatives value our laws?

What makes me sick is propagandist bigots like you. You are ignorant of what is going on around you. Maybe if you didn't look down on the unwashed masses you might hear what they have to say.

Come on, lets hear more of your dogmatic rantings.

[The Big Dog]

Jan 23, 2009 17:13:41 GMT -5 saunterelle said:

I am strongly against illegal immigration (and wish Bush and the Republicans had secured our borders when they had the chance) but it makes me sick to see conservatives calling for the release of these two criminals simply because the person they shot was here illegally. What does that say about the way these conservatives value our laws?

Was that the earth reversing it's orbit or did I just agree with Saunterelle?

The above says exactly what I've been trying to say... the case of Ramos & Compean is not and never was about the border itself, nor the issue with illegal immigration. Those in the press and their supporters who have been framing it that way are dead ass wrong. But unfortunately that is the direction the case has taken.

Speaking solely for myself I don't want to live in a country where the police can arbitrarily shoot people down solely for trying to run from the police. That was, after all, the only thing that they were arresting Davila for... they didn't find his dope until later.

[ferrous]

TBD writes: " He was hit in the left buttcheek. Bullets in bodies do not always follow straight paths."

That was one hell of a right turn that bullet made.

NATIONAL BORDER PATROL COUNCIL REBUTTAL TO THE
MISREPRESENTATIONS OF THE U.S. ATTORNEY’S OFFICE OF THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS CONCERNING THE PROSECUTION OF
BORDER PATROL AGENTS JOSÉ ALONSO COMPEAN AND IGNACIO RAMOS


[Both Agent Compean and Ramos testified that the drug smuggler turned and pointed a weapon at them while he was running away. The wound channel created by the bullet that struck the drug smuggler corroborates their version of the events. According to the affidavit of the Office of Inspector General investigator who accompanied the drug smuggler to William Beaumont Army Medical Center for treatment, the Army doctor who removed the bullet fragment from the drug smuggler “advised that the bullet entered the lower left buttocks of the victim and passed through his pelvic triangle and lodged in his right thigh.” At the trial, the Army doctor testified that the drug
smuggler’s body was “bladed” away from the bullet that struck him, consistent with the motion of a left-handed person running away while pointing backward, causing the body to twist. There is only one logical object that he would have been pointing at them under these circumstances – a firearm.
As noted previously, none of the agents on the north side of the irrigation canal could have possibly seen what transpired on the other side of the levee access road, even if they climbed on top of one of the vehicles. It is also worth noting that Agent Juarez, along with two other Border Patrol agents, was granted immunity by the Department of Justice in exchange for his testimony. Since he was not involved in the incident, one has to wonder why he would need immunity, and what effect that had on the truthfulness of his testimony.]

[ferrous]

Saunterell writes: "if you have left wing sources that called for their immediate release I would love to see them."

The Senate Judiciary Committee examined the prosecution in July 2007 after which Senator Dianne Feinstein asked President Bush to commute the sentences.

July 17, 2007

Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein concluded a Senate hearing today on the high-profile prosecution of former Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean with a vow to look further into why prosecutors charged the men with a violation that requires a mandatory 10-year sentence.

Chairing the Senate judiciary committee hearing, Feinstein questioned the decision to charge the agents under 18 United States Code section 924(c)(1)(a), which requires the harsh sentence for using or carrying a firearm in the commission of a crime of violence.

Ramos and Compean are serving 11- and 12-year sentences, respectively, after a jury convicted them of violating federal gun laws and covering up the shooting of a drug smuggler as he fled back to Mexico after driving across the border with 742 pounds of marijuana in February 2005. U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton's office gave the smuggler, Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, immunity to serve as the government's star witness and testify against the border agents.

Feinstein, during questioning of Sutton, argued the statute did not apply to Ramos and Compean in their pursuit of a drug smuggler at the Mexican border, because there was no underlying crime.

Sutton, of the Western District of Texas, said he did not make the decision to charge the agents under 924(c), and would not answer directly when asked whether or not he thought it was a good choice. He defended his prosecutorial team, however, pointing to their experience handling border-related cases and a record of competency.

Referring to the hearing testimony of Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., Feinstein argued, however, the sentences for Ramos and Compean "are more than most people serve for murder."

We're going to take a good look at this section of the code and see if there are any amendments that might be considered," Feinstein said.

The California Democrat expressed incredulity when Sutton said he never was consulted about charging the agents under 924(c).

"I can't believe somebody in this instance would charge this and never consult with superiors when we know there are consultations back and forth with [the Department of Justice in Washington] with lesser cases all the time," she told Sutton, alluding to previous congressional scrutiny of the firing of eight U.S. attorneys.

Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, brought up reports that while under immunity, Aldrete-Davila was caught in another drug delivery, but the judge sealed that information from the jury.

The final answer by Sutton in summing up his actions sounds like it was taken right out of the Big Dog's play book...

"The reason all of this mess happen is because agents Ramos and Compean shot an unarmed guy and ran away and covered it up," he said. " ... There is no one to blame in this country for what happened but them."

www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56719

[ferrous]

TBD writes: "Speaking solely for myself I don't want to live in a country where the police can arbitrarily shoot people down solely for trying to run from the police. That was, after all, the only thing that they were arresting Davila for... they didn't find his dope until later.


And what if Davila was armed with a gun and in the process of turning and firing when he was shot?

Your argument holds no water... You or I were not there... Sutton was not there... Only Ramos, Compean, and Davila actually know what really happened. The jury (who were not there,) with the evidence that was permitted in court chose to side with the prosecution.

Justice is blind, there is no right or wrong. Evidence is weighed and a verdict is rendered.

You can't tell me for fact that Ramos and Compean shot at a defenseless man running from them.

You can only state for sure that Ramos and Compean were convicted just like you have to say that OJ was not found guilty of murder.

[The New Guy]

okay, boys and girls. while we all enjoy spirited debate let's try to control our tempers and watch our language.

re: "What a bullshit answer" and...

"Well if it's such a bullshit answer, stick it in your ass"

[The Big Dog]

Jan 24, 2009 12:50:17 GMT -5 ferrous said:

And what if Davila was armed with a gun and in the process of turning and firing when he was shot?

Prove that he was... no one can. Or at least has not been able to yet. And unless it can be proven that he was, then for the purpose of law he has to be presumed to have been unarmed.

Your argument holds no water... You or I were not there... Sutton was not there... Only Ramos, Compean, and Davila actually know what really happened. The jury (who were not there,) with the evidence that was permitted in court chose to side with the prosecution.

You are forgetting that Agent Juarez was present during the entire confrontation. He knows exactly what happened as well and testified at trial.

Justice is blind, there is no right or wrong. Evidence is weighed and a verdict is rendered.

Absolutely correct. That is how the system works. That which can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard in any criminal action) is what is presumed to be fact. Am I to presume you have a problem with that too?

You can't tell me for fact that Ramos and Compean shot at a defenseless man running from them.

And you can't tell me for fact that they shot at a man who was shooting at them... while running away. Everyone involved testified that Davila was running away, that much seems to be inarguable. And it's mighty hard to be throwing shots back over your shoulder when in full flight.

And to circle back on your assertions on the wound, again bullets do funny things when they start hitting bodies. Within the past couple of years the exact trajectory and resultant injuries from the "Magic Bullet" of the Kennedy assassination were recreated in a live fire exercise. As improbable as that might have seemed for all these years, it was not only possible it was reproducable.

You can only state for sure that Ramos and Compean were convicted just like you have to say that OJ was not found guilty of murder.

Well yes and yes. I can read the full range of documentation from a trial, put my own training and experience into some analysis and reach an informed conclusion. That is what I've done with this case.

You, for your part, don't like the results, and that's your right. However it remains my assertion that your opinions are based on less than the full range of the evidence and that they are not objective because of the undercurrent issue of illegal immigration which is being used as a crutch by the more strident defenders of these two men.

Davila was / is a dirtbag. You'll not get any argument from me on that score. However much a dirtbag he is, he didn't deserve to get shot when the law and agency policy didn't allow for it. These two guys knew better, much better really, and their actions post incident are what damn their actions during the incident all the more.