Posted on 01/20/2007 6:03:59 PM PST by DaveyB
Regarding the BP agents, I do believe they are guilty of some crime. However, it was clearly NOT a premeditated crime, at least the underlying crime. Covering it up is inexcusable, but understandable. Therefore, I would expect some kind of leniency, something more lenient than full-bore prosecution resulting in decades in jail time. And I want to know why getting a conviction was so overwhelmingly important to the prosecutor, Sutton, that he colluded with 'scum-bags' to cement his case against them. My opinion of justice in this case would be closer to firing the agents involved and 2 years suspended sentence for evidence tampering, with community service. What is so overwhelmingly evil about shooting an obvious drug-runner while he is fleeing? Yeah, it's technically wrong, but it has surely happened many times before without prosecution, and all agents are now on notice that ANY technical violation, serious or not-so-serious, will result in vigorous prosecution of the agents, while immunity for career criminals is, has been, and will remain standard procedure.
Considering all the above, can anyone tell me we are living under a rational justice system? This entire incident reminds me of the movie 'Tom Horn'. Anybody here see that movie?
All would shoot and TELL not shoot shovel and shut up.
I don't think that has anything to do with the issue.
I "think" it has a hell of a lot to do with the "issue"
How well would you do as a Border Patrol officer?
What I'm saying is you are oblivious to the war going on down there. You think this is some kind of cops and robbers situation when in reality it's a semi-war zone
I know it's a very difficult job and my probable lack of skill as a bp agent doesn't negate the facts in this case.
It does negate the "facts" because you don't know the facts, you don't appreciate the overall context of this taking place in a semi war zone
I think if they had just come clean and not tried to cover up the shooting they wouldn't have been tried.
It's nice to see someone with so many "I thinks" to offer.
Cops operate on a system called the "continuum of force", a scale which gives you a rough idea of what sort of force you should use in a given situation. Generally, departments train their officers to use a level of force one magnitude greater than the offender that they're confronting. Verbal or non-lethal (mace, tasers, etc.) tools for a subject who is not cooperating but not actively resisting, batons and closed-hand blows for one who is physically resisting, and lethal force for armed suspects. Spend a half-hour watching the show Cops sometime and you'll get an idea of how the continuum of force works.
Aldrete-Davila was an unarmed suspect fleeing from police, and in that case it would have been perfectly acceptable to arrest him using tackles, closed-hand blows, batons, etc. The use of a firearm was going overboard, but probably would only have resulted in an administrative punishment or at worst firing if the officers had followed procedure. Instead they chose to destroy evidence and attempt to cover up what they had done.
Given the information that we've been presented with, I think that the prosecutor made the right call. And given the prosecutor's history as a staunch Republican and Bush appointee, I assume that his prosecution was made without political motivation.
Read post 160 before you so righteously spout off. The poster is with Border Patrol and nicely sums up the problem. The overall context in which this shot_in_the_butt took place
How about this for an "I think"?
"I think" that the trial and conviction of these two Border Patrol agents sends the wrong message to Mexican criminals who commit crimes in the Unites States, who smuggle drugs and people into the United States. The message is that the Border Patrol will not be aggressive with you because they will be prosecuted by a good friend of George Bush, the politically motivated hack named Johnny Sutton
Mexican drug smugglers are very happy these days. They are laughing at the "justice" rendered by the stupid Gringos for Compean and Ramos.
> These guys were like the cops in Magnum Force. Dirty as hell.
>
> Get over it.
Well said. I read Sutton's remarks impartially (I have no skin in the game, as I am from NZ) and I am left with the impression that these Border Guards deserve to be imprisoned.
Sadly, so does the alleged smuggler -- but that will not happen because the Border Guards shot him contrary to their rules of engagement, and then tried to cover up.
Johnny Sutton's background doesn't suggest that he would have any grudge against the BP.
The jackass has sent a message to Mexico that our borders are open to Mexican criminals and drug smugglers. Either this message was intentional or he just doesn't give a crap about the ripple effects created by unjustified prosecution of Ramos and Compean. George Bush is open borders. What makes you think Johnny Sutton isn't? This entire prosecution promotes open borders between Mexico and the USA. Just the way the hacks in DC like it
You seem more concerned with the political ramifications than whether or not the patrolmen deserved to be prosecuted.
You ignore the political ramifications. You can pretend the prosecution takes place in a vacuum. Rather than on the lawless Mexican-USA border
Compean and Ramos are innocent and the Mexican drug smuggler is guilty. For you and Johnny Sutton it's the reverse.
I'm confused as to how you could come to that conclusion, please explain.
Why should I respond to someone who can only muster up one sentence arguments? Use google and learn some more about Sutton and this case. It's far too lazy and easy to accept Johnny Sutton's actions at face value, and to give me one sentence rejoinders
Because it's impossible for me to make a more detailed argument until I understand your position.
I agree with you that these guys don't belong in jail but if they had been totally honest with what had happened Johnny Sutton wouldn't have felt compelled to bring it to trial. The other agent testified that he didn't feel threatened and didn't draw his weapon. I know it's bad down there with the criminal drug smuggling but it's no more of a war zone than any one of our cities where the cops are only allowed to shoot if they see their or somone elses lives are threatened. Why should it be any other way? By the way, I read the whole Sutton interview and he does sound to me like they want to back up the shootings involving the bp agents and almost always do give them the benefit of the doubt. Sounds like if the bp agents were greatly increased in number, Sutton would be happy with that. You are reading a whole lot of negativity into his actions, I believe. Also, the agents were offer a plea deal as I'm sure you know, of one year. Maybe they would have only had to serve 6 months? I still think they don't belong in jail but at least Sutton tried to minimize their pain and still uphold the law.
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.