Posted on 01/20/2007 6:20:34 AM PST by Ladycalif
President Bush is expected to reach out to the families of two Texas Border Patrol agents convicted of shooting a Mexican drug smuggler.
White House staff contacted former agent Ignacio Ramos' family early Friday, assuring them the president would call them soon, said Monica Ramos, the agent's wife.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailybulletin.com ...
I think that is the major reason given for why these two were convicted. My understanding is if you fire your weapon you are required to spend the rest of the night filling out a report. That said, seems to me like 10 and 12 year sentences are a bit steep. Administrative leave with pay would have been more appropriate based on what I've read about this case.
You call those stats?
So what did the feds do after this?? U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton extended his immunity to this second felony and then sealed the indictment for this crime from jurors. And what did the drug dealer then do? He promptly filed a $5 million lawsuit against the feds who twice granted him immunity.
Is this unbelievable or what? The government has truly turned upside down.
They shot at this creep over 40 times and missed? For that alone they should have been given a couple weeks off from work.
I am with you. The place to start after they get released from jail is to arm ourselves EN MASS and go to the source, Washington DC, and take back our country.
A BIT? You say just a BIT? You must be joking.
DOH! Forgot the /sarcasm tag.....
Sorry, can't agree. The Supreme Court is much to important to leave it to be possibly filled by the likes of Gore or Kerry for 4 long risky years. Bashing Bush is OK for a few select things, but Alito and Roberts are superb choices. Don't forget that.
Seems you can't post news articles even though they have attribution? Sounds like a ridiculous rule to me.
Not only was JohnnyBoy Sutton overzealous by charging them with attempted murder (for which they were acquitted), he used laws never intended for this purpose that resulted in the outrageously lenghthy sentences. Put that together with all of the evidence that Judge Cardone wouldn't admit during trial (testimony about the daily warzone these agents work in, or their training and work records), these guys really got screwed, IMO.
http://www.fedsmith.com/articles/references/JonesltronBP.pdf
October 11, 2006
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Dear Attorney General Gonzales:
We are writing to you with deep concern over an improper charge against U.S. Border Patrol agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean.
Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean were convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §924(c). This statute makes it a crime to carry or use a firearm during commission of a violent or drug trafficking crime. Violations of the statute carry a mandatory sentence of no less than 10 years. Currently, this is the only charge facing both Ramos and Compean requiring mandatory prison time not to be served concurrently.
Yesterday, a motion to delay sentencing for Ramos and Compean was denied. Sentencing is now scheduled for Thursday, October 19th. We urge you to take any action you can to either delay this sentencing or have the 18 U.S.C. §924(c) charges dropped. This statute has historically been used in violent crime and drug trafficking cases. It has also been applied to law enforcement when necessary, however, based on past applications of §924(c) to law enforcement, it appears that its application in the present case is unwarranted.
When §924(c) is applied to law enforcement officers, it is in the context of heinous crimes, such as sexual assaults, which are clearly outside the realm of official duties. The application of §924(c) in this case is overly broad, setting a dangerous precedent of application to law enforcement officers trying to act within the scope of their official duties. Ramos and Compean were within the scope of their official duties when they fired at an illegal drug smuggler they believe to be armed and dangerous. We strongly urge you to use your authority to dismiss the unnecessary and overzealous §924 (c) charge against these Border Patrol agents.
Sincerely,
__________________
Walter B. Jones
Member of Congress
Cc: George W. Bush, President of the United States
Honorable James F. Sensenbrenner, Chairman, Committee on Judiciary
timing is everything...
Bubba skated with Tamraz, Rich and Riady.
Good good a mooga who else.
And then there was Goober and Bert Lance.
Geez Tia Louisa..
"I don't get the hysteria by the border nuts."
Many of us concerned about the porous border don't understand illegal apologists either.
"There's a good deal of pressure on the president on the domestic front," Pitney said. "One thing that can possibly hold him back is the reaction from Mexico.
Well, that's always the way it is with George, isn't it? Why don't we just ask Mexico directly to pardon these agents. Then we don't have to waste time asking Bush.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts
Thanks for the info. That explains it. I'm surprised that Investor's Business Daily is on the list. Their editorial page is always conservative. You would think that they would want some exposure here to gain new subscribers. That's a dumb way to run a business, IMO.
Some of us in the same category don't think the president's job description includes summarily pardoning individuals before he studies the facts of a case.
Johnny jackass Sutton goes way back with George Bush and is a close adviser now. Sutton's fiefdom includes Crawford Texas
How would you like to be tried by an El Paso jury? The place is crawling with illegal aliens and they're just fine with it that way
Can you site a US government web site where that report was published?
IMMHO, it's bogus but has gotten a lot of play on blogger sites and via email.
But no "source" is ever stated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.