Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mexican in Border Patrol Case May Still Face Drug Charges
CNSNews.com ^ | January 26, 2007 | Fred Lucas

Posted on 01/26/2007 10:08:51 AM PST by SwinneySwitch

- The Mexican suspected drug smuggler granted immunity in the controversial - and politically explosive - prosecution of two U.S. Border Patrol agents is not entirely off the hook.

U.S. Attorney Johnny Sutton, the man at the center of the row over the prosecution and jailing of the two agents who shot the illegal immigrant, confirmed to Cybercast News Service Thursday that there is an ongoing investigation into Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila and others.

Aldrete-Davila had been driving a van containing 743 pounds of marijuana on Feb. 17, 2005, the day border agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean shot and wounded him as he fled on foot toward the Mexican border.

Sutton gave Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution in that drug-smuggling case in return for his testimony against the pair.

But amid the political row over the case, one allegation has been widely reported but never established: that Aldrete-Davila had subsequently - in October of that same year - tried to smuggle another 1,000 pounds of marijuana into the United States.

Critics have accused Sutton of being so zealous in the prosecution that he offered the Mexican further immunity for this second alleged offense. Sutton has denied this.

Pressed on the matter Thursday, the U.S. attorney worded his response carefully.

"If an allegation of drug smuggling is made, we're investigating it, and that includes the allegation made in this case," he told Cybercast News Service.

"If we have sufficient evidence to prove a case against a drug smuggler - including Aldrete - we will bring it," Sutton added.

"If there is a provable case against Aldrete, we will bring it as we would any other drug dealer," Sutton added. "He does not have immunity for anything other than his truthful testimony."

However, Sutton insisted Aldrete-Davila was neither arrested nor indicted prior to or after the shooting incident, a statement the Border Patrol agents' union contends is false.

"There was no secondary arrest. There was no secondary indictment," Sutton said of the allegation reported numerous times in the media.

This possible second charge did not pertain directly to the case in which Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 and 12 years respectively for shooting at the illegal immigrant.

But the claim inflamed an already outraged public who questioned why a drug dealer would be set free for even one offense while border agents are jailed.

'Sealed indictment'

Members of Congress have called for hearings on Capitol Hill to investigate the case, while the agents' union, the National Border Patrol Council, is calling for a special counsel independent from the Justice Department to investigate Sutton.

Two resolutions were introduced in the House this month - one to vacate the conviction and sentencing of the agents and another calling on President Bush to pardon them.

The National Border Patrol Council insists there was a sealed indictment against Aldrete-Davila for smuggling the 1,000 pounds of marijuana.

Another individual indicted in that drug seizure was called as a witness for the agents' defense but was not allowed to testify because of a sealed indictment and an ongoing investigation, the union says.

The union further contends that U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency officials involved in the seizure of the 1,000 pounds of marijuana were not allowed to testify in this Ramos-Compean case because of an ongoing investigation that could have been compromised.

Given the secrecy and gag orders on the case, Cybercast News Service asked the union about its source for the claims about a second drug offense.

"The agents, before they went to prison," said union President T.J. Bonner. "They felt free to talk without being held in contempt of court, because they were going to jail anyway."

Bonner believes the prosecutor is being disingenuous to claim there was no arrest.

"He's just being very cute," Bonner said. "Because the indictment was expunged, he's pretending it was never there."

Sutton stressed that he was limited as to what he could say regarding any ongoing probe.

"There's an allegation that were discussed at the [Ramos-Compean] trial among lawyers that I can't go into beyond that," Sutton said.

"Lawyers for both the defendant and the prosecution who tried the case and the judge had hearings on those cases and rulings were made," he said.

"All decisions about what evidence comes into court was discussed among the lawyers and the judge, and the judge made the rulings about what evidence comes into court in the trial," Sutton said.

He said the character of the smuggler did not alter the fact that the agents had committed a violent crime.

"All of the discussion of bad acts of the smuggler were litigated at trial to determine what was admissible and what was not," Sutton said.

"He was cross-examined for many hours by defense attorneys. The jury was very clearly aware he was a dope smuggler, an illegal alien and a bad guy that runs from the police. That was all clear at the trial," he said.


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; Mexico; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: aldretedavila; aliens; borderpatrol; bp; bribe; carny; compean; corruption; ignacioramos; immigrantlist; johnnysutton; overzealous; scotfree; sutton; wod
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Aldrete-Davila needs to do time.
1 posted on 01/26/2007 10:08:54 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
And Sutton needs to be in the Cell next to him.


2 posted on 01/26/2007 10:16:13 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jedi Master Pikachu; 2dogjoe; radar101; RamingtonStall; engrpat; HamiltonFan; Draco; TexasCajun; ...

Ping!

If you want on, or off this S. Texas/Mexico ping list, please FReepMail me.


3 posted on 01/26/2007 10:18:14 AM PST by SwinneySwitch (Terroristas - beyond your expectations!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

Where is the perp now?


4 posted on 01/26/2007 10:18:27 AM PST by wolfcreek (Please Lord, May I be, one who sees what's in front of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

What a f'n joke. (not you. our system)


5 posted on 01/26/2007 10:18:37 AM PST by NormsRevenge (Semper Fi ...... California 2007,, Where's a script re-write guy when ya need 'em?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NormsRevenge

The system is so broken that nothing can fix it short of a complete overhaul


6 posted on 01/26/2007 10:21:44 AM PST by clamper1797 (Per caritate viduaribus orphanibusque sed prime viduaribus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

"There was no secondary arrest. There was no secondary indictment," Sutton said of the allegation reported numerous times in the media.

That's because when he was caught the 2nd time he immediately told the Border Patrol agent....you can't touch me, I have immunity! The BP agent called it in and was told to let him go.

This scenario is totally plausible since nothing that happens on the border surprises me anymore.


7 posted on 01/26/2007 10:22:45 AM PST by sheana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #8 Removed by Moderator

To: darkwing104

"And Sutton needs to be in the Cell next to him."

Amen to that.


9 posted on 01/26/2007 10:29:25 AM PST by NapkinUser (http://www.teamtancredo.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek

Where's the perp? Sutton is preparing a parade honoring him, it sounds like. What a travesty of justice.


10 posted on 01/26/2007 10:34:37 AM PST by bboop (Stealth Tutor)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: 1_Inch_Group; 2sheep; 2Trievers; 3AngelaD; 3pools; 3rdcanyon; 4Freedom; 4ourprogeny; 7.62 x 51mm; ..

ping


11 posted on 01/26/2007 10:36:21 AM PST by gubamyster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

what!

What is wrong with the DOJ? I wonder who is more dangerous Sutton, Fitzgerald or the judge.

12 posted on 01/26/2007 10:37:50 AM PST by libill (Socialism is communism with a happy face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wolfcreek
I think he's now in Mexico and suing us for 5 million dollars, because the BP violated his inalienable right to smuggle drugs without getting his a$$ shot!
13 posted on 01/26/2007 10:41:44 AM PST by SwinneySwitch (Terroristas - beyond your expectations!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
...the National Border Patrol Council, is calling for a special counsel independent from the Justice Department to investigate Sutton.

The National Border Patrol Council insists there was a sealed indictment against Aldrete-Davila for smuggling the 1,000 pounds of marijuana.

Sounds like the Border Patrol knows more than we know about this travesty.

14 posted on 01/26/2007 10:45:38 AM PST by TruthConquers (Delenda est publius schola)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TruthConquers

Careful. The National Border Patrol Council is a branch of the AFL-CIO, and knows just as much about this case as a substantial number of people on this website.


15 posted on 01/26/2007 10:47:58 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

The NBPC is not a branch of the AFL-CIO, it's just an affiliation. If it was a branch of the AFL-CIO the NBPC would be supporting the case against the agents. They probably would have even recommended the death penalty.


16 posted on 01/26/2007 11:01:24 AM PST by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

He's now in Mexico?


ADIOS!


17 posted on 01/26/2007 11:05:50 AM PST by wolfcreek (Please Lord, May I be, one who sees what's in front of me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Given the secrecy and gag orders on the case, Cybercast News Service asked the union about its source for the claims about a second drug offense. "The agents, before they went to prison," said union President T.J. Bonner. "They felt free to talk without being held in contempt of court, because they were going to jail anyway."

I've been asking the opposition to provide ANY evidence of this alleged "2nd arrest". Nobody has been able to give a name of a single person who actually KNEW about this second arrest.

Now we find that the "source" for this "damning" piece of information is the two BP agents who have been convicted. And Bonner says they ignored a lawful order to remain silent on the matter in order to reveal the information.

Obviously, a statement from the two people who are trying to discredit their prosecuter is hardly "evidence". And the fact that they were not charged with contempt is pretty good evidence that there is no court order requiring their silence on the matter. And arguing that the two people who you insist are law-abiding citizens violated a lawful court order simply to smear the prosecuter is hardly a way to convince people of their truthfulness and good intentions.

18 posted on 01/26/2007 11:07:03 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

Absolutely sickening. This Sutton scumbag needs to fry for this.


19 posted on 01/26/2007 11:10:15 AM PST by Kitten Festival
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kitten Festival

""Absolutely sickening. This Sutton scumbag needs to fry for this.""

Couldn't agree more! The key is to keep the pressure on. Keep the emails going to Congress and don't let the stink over this malicious prosecution go away.


20 posted on 01/26/2007 11:24:27 AM PST by InsensitiveConservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
This case and the details of it MUST be reviewed and debated by the American people. This is not just a local issue.

The law enforcement dampening and other effects that will result from this case will ripple throughout the entire country.

21 posted on 01/26/2007 11:25:26 AM PST by libill (Socialism is communism with a happy face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

"Sutton gave Aldrete-Davila immunity from prosecution in that drug-smuggling case in return for his testimony against the pair."

All I can do is shake my head, this makes no sense at all. Why in on earth would he do that?


22 posted on 01/26/2007 11:27:28 AM PST by angelsonmyside
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch
Dear Mr. & Ms. America, please defend your border and we put you in jail....signed the mexican drug cartels and prosecutor sutton. sutton will more than likely be paid quite well for this lunacy. Fred (the author) is probably on a 'hit list', by now.
23 posted on 01/26/2007 11:27:50 AM PST by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

There were a LOT of people hanging their hats on this "second arrest" canard. This article might not completely sink the argument, but it's fair to say it has lost steering and is taking on water.


24 posted on 01/26/2007 11:29:07 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: angelsonmyside
All I can do is shake my head, this makes no sense at all. Why in on earth would he do that?

Because he thought the evidence pointed to the BP agents committing a serious crime, and the agents' own actions made prosecution of the smuggler impossible.

25 posted on 01/26/2007 11:31:26 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Excuse me. Not impossible, but fruitless.


26 posted on 01/26/2007 11:32:23 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

I've gotten so tired of the proponents not using their brains.

I just posted on another thread a description based solely on the statements made by the two BP agents, noting that if you made a movie of it the audience would complain that it wasn't realistic.

The gist of it: A hardened drug-smuggler, armed and dangerous, is running from the police who is NOT shooting at him. But rather than continuing to run, he TURNS TOWARD THE OFFICER, brandishing a loaded weapon. But when the officer shoots at him 14 times, the smuggler does NOT SHOOT BACK, and instead turns after the shots and starts running again.

But then he stops, and turns back just as the OTHER officer shows up. Again, he brandishes a loaded gun, but when the officer shoots one time at him, the evil drug smuggler turns away, again without firing a shot, and runs.

They insist a drug smuggler would carry a gun to protect himself, but then want us to believe that he would point the weapon at officers who were not shooting at him (which he would KNOW would cause them to shoot at him) and then NOT shoot back at them.

In other words, the evil Drug Smuggler shows more restraint in the use of deadly force than the two BP agents.


27 posted on 01/26/2007 11:49:08 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: sheana
nothing that happens on the border surprises me anymore

Nothing that happens, period, surprises me much anymore either!

28 posted on 01/26/2007 11:50:37 AM PST by From One - Many (Trust the Old Media At Your Own Risk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Don't forget that the two agents did not warn the other responding officers that the subject was armed.


29 posted on 01/26/2007 11:51:12 AM PST by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf


30 posted on 01/26/2007 11:51:22 AM PST by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
They insist a drug smuggler would carry a gun to protect himself, but then want us to believe that he would point the weapon at officers who were not shooting at him (which he would KNOW would cause them to shoot at him) and then NOT shoot back at them.

Drug smugglers don't shoot at law enforcement officers because they have guns? Is that what you are saying?

31 posted on 01/26/2007 11:56:21 AM PST by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin

No.

I'm saying that the defense claim is that a drug smuggler POINTED A GUN at two BP agents who were NOT shooting at the drug smuggler, but then when the BP agents shot at him the drug smuggler did NOT fire back at them, but rather ran again.

IN other words, he's running and NOT being shot at, so he stops, pulls out a weapon, and POINTS IT AT THE AGENTS, so the agents shoot at him, and then he puts his gun away and starts running again.

Which, I am saying, is absurd. If the guy had a gun, AND he pointed the gun at the agents, he would have also SHOT at them. The supporters want you to believe a smuggler who was getting away from the agents turned and pointed a gun at them but had no intention of shooting it, and didn't shoot it when they shot at him.

To which I note that, if the story is true, the drug smuggler was more restrained in the use of deadly force than the two BP agents were.


32 posted on 01/26/2007 12:05:55 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
You're right they weren't trying to shoot him. They were trying to apprehend him, which in the eyes of drug smugglers is more than a good enough reason to shoot at the Border Patrol.

There are a multitude of reasons why Alddrete may have decided not to shoot back. I would say getting shot by the agent was probably at the top of the list.

33 posted on 01/26/2007 12:20:03 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Ajnin
I urge everybody to read the link referenced in the referenced post. It contains a new story about the incident (there are many stories about the incident, because each story raises more questions that have to be corrected).

Anyway, go read it. I won't rebut the entire thing, any thinking person can do that for themselves by reading it. I'll just reference the FIRST thing mentioned, to show how it is done:

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"

OK, note first that we don't have evidence from the doctor, but from someone reporting what the doctor said. We have an "affidavit", but given that this person would never have testified in court, an "affidavit" has no real meaning, it's not like he'd go to jail for lying. But he might not even be lying, he might have simply misunderstood what was said. But in any case, this was offered to claim the drug smuggler had turned around, but if he was facing the agents the bullet would not have lodged in his right thigh after going through his left butt -- he would have to have been sideways with his back toward them.

Which is the testimony at trial, somehow presented by the pro-BP people as if it helps them:

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.

Which I guess would be helpful to the agents, if their story was that the guy pointed a gun at them while running away. But the story they told was that he turned toward them, and had something shiny in his hand.

34 posted on 01/26/2007 12:22:08 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: SwinneySwitch

Bump for later read...


35 posted on 01/26/2007 12:24:27 PM PST by Bender2 (Gad, Millee! 1st Lindsy goes into rehab, then you bust a gut to get my attention...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
OK, it's fun, so I'll do one more. At several places in their "rebuttal", the pro-BP NPBC claims that Sutton is lying about not being able to identify Davilas as the drug smuggler from that day. For their "evidence" they say this:

The fact that the U.S. Attorney's Office and Office of Inspector General were able to track down the drug smuggler in Mexico proves that the government had sifficient evidence to tie him to the drug load, but nonetheless chose not to prosecute him

I don't believe the NBPC are stupid, therefore they must be deliberately trying to mislead people -- hardly a way to convince us they are trying to get to the truth.

See, the reason our agents could FIND the dealer is that the dealer TOLD US WHERE HE WAS, as part of the PLEA DEAL. Get it? He contacts through an intermediary, makes arrangements for use immunity, then he TELLS US WHERE HE IS, and we send people to drive him up to the U.S. to remove the bullet.

To suggest that this "proves" anything is so absurd that it taints everything these people tell us. That they would lie so blatantly about something so trivial shows that you can't trust anything they say.

36 posted on 01/26/2007 12:28:40 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

This has turned out to be quite a "he said", "she said" controversy. Most of the weight of course is with the US Attorney. Hopefully a proper investigation will ensue and we will finally have answers as to what really happen.


37 posted on 01/26/2007 12:36:47 PM PST by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I've gotten so tired of the proponents not using their brains.

That statement is extremely insulting. Typical elitist nonsense.

I suggest you read this http://www.nbpc.net/ramos_compean/rebuttal_to_sutton.pdf and then return and make your insulting charges.

38 posted on 01/26/2007 12:40:45 PM PST by libill (Socialism is communism with a happy face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
OK, here's a funny one. Early in their so-called "rebuttal", the NBCP claims:

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,

They also say: only three individuals were eyewitnesses to the crucial events of that day: the two accused Border Patrol agents and the drug smuggler. The other Border Patrol agents who responded to the scene remained on the north side of a steep and wide drainage canal, and their view of the levee channel south of them was completely obscured by the levy access road,

OK, their claim is that nobody else saw the shootings. Let's accept this claim as true for the sake of discussion. Later, trying to excuse the BP agents for not reporting the shooting to supervisors, they argue this:

In accordance with the agency's firearms policy, employees who participate in or observe a reportable shooting incidend are required to "orally report the incident to a supervisor".

Well, how would this excuse the two agents, since according to the NPBC the two agents were the ONLY TWO AGENTS to "participate or observe" the shootings. If the other agents did not observe the shootings, why would they be in trouble for not reporting it, and why would the two agents who DID participate and observe the shooting think they didn't have to report it?

Remember, this is the best they could do when they had MONTHS to comb through all the statements and present an argument in the best light possible. And they can't even be consistent within their own 9-page "rebuttal".

39 posted on 01/26/2007 12:40:53 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: libill

Go read posts 34, 36, and 39. I read that so-called "rebuttal", and it is easily debunked. I would be embarrased to have to count on that document for anything.

I notice that you didn't say one word about the subtance of my post. Do you find it credible that a fleeing drug smuggler who was NOT being shot at, and had clearly gotten away from the agents, would turn around and point a gun at them, and then NOT SHOOT, even when they shoot at him?

Do you find it at all credible that he would do this not ONCE, but TWICE, both times turning with the gun when there was no evidence that agents were anywhere close to catching him?

If you find that credible, I would like to hear you say it. Note that in addition, we have the testimony of both men that at one point the defendant had both of his hands in the air -- they claim it was to "balance himself" and later to "attack the agent". Why would a man with a gun use his hands in the air to attack an agent? Where was the gun when the hands were in the air, such that he could later pull it out while he was running, but such that neither agent could see the gun when they were in close proximity with the man?

So he gets out of his van, grabs his gun, shoves it in a pocket or in his pants, runs away, runs INTO campeon (who is waiting in ambush for him). He raises his hands with no weapon, Campeon gets into a struggle (according to the BP agent, the other testimony is that the guy was surrendering but Campeon fell over), still no weapon, then the guy gets up but instead of pulling his weapon and shooting or disarming the agent laying on the ground, the drug smuggler RUNS AWAY.

But after running for a while and putting distance between him and the agent, THEN the drug smuggler retrieves the weapon from some hidden place WHILE RUNNING, and then turns around and POINTS THE WEAPON at the BP agent, but he's so far away the agent isn't sure it's a weapon, he just sees a little glint of metal, but the BP agent shoots anyway, and the smuggler doesn't fire back.

They say don't pull your weapon unless you intend to use it. Yet I'm supposed to believe that an armed drug smuggler pulled his weapon, but didn't use it.

As I said -- the drug smuggler, if you are to believe the BP agents, had more restraint in the use of deadly force than the BP agents. The BP agents (by their testimony) thought they MIGHT have seen a weapon in the hands of a fleeing man, and they fear for their lives and SHOOT AT HIM. But the drug-smuggling criminal, who supposedly is Brandishing a weapon, having been actually SHOT AT 15 TIMES by border agents, refuses to defend himself by firing back.

If there were no other agents around, I'm certain the two BP agent's story would have the guy actually FIRING THE WEAPON at them, because at least then it would make sense. Unfortunately, there were too many witnesses for them to add shots fired by the smuggler.


40 posted on 01/26/2007 12:53:26 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: libill

BTW, I'm so rarely called an elitist. Is that an insult? I'd love to be in a position where I could choose to be an elitist.


41 posted on 01/26/2007 12:54:41 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT (Typical Elitist!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I read your posts and your statements may or may not have truth to them and regarding your statements they mean nothing and are mere speculation until you identify yourself as having personal and first-hand involvement.

I've gotten so tired of the proponents not using their brain

I personally find that to be insulting.

I want to know what happened and will entertain both parties descriptions. There are always 2 sides to a story. What I see at the moment is a he said/she said contest of legal bomb throwing with the word of 2 border patrol agents refuting the testimony from a drug dealer. I don't want my sister or my nephew to worry that she will lose her law enforcement husband and possibly be homeless, and my nephew fatherless like their families.

42 posted on 01/26/2007 1:14:19 PM PST by libill (Socialism is communism with a happy face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: libill

Whatever. my statements are a summary of what the BP agents have said. They aren't meant for drive-by posters, but for the people that have kept on top of things and have read all the articles and posted the BP agent's claims as gospel truth.

Those people would recognize that my statement accurately reflects what the BP agents claim happened.

They also will ignore my statements, because they don't have an answer to the question. In short, the story given to us by the BP agents does not make sense.


43 posted on 01/26/2007 1:35:28 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

Does Agent Juarez testimony have nothing to do with this case?.... It seems that his testimony is always overlooked and all centers on Ramos/Compean and Aldrete... My guess is that the jury would look at Agent Juarez's testimony and give some weight [good or bad] into what he says as he was on scene and a part of the action.


44 posted on 01/26/2007 1:37:27 PM PST by deport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: libill

And if you think this is just a "he-said/she-said", you need to go back and read the numerous articles posted about this.

We would all like to have a videotape showing what happened that day. But there is a LOT MORE evidence than just the words spoken by three people. There's the bullet. There's the testimony of other agents involved. There's the shell casings. There's the official signed incident report from the agents. There's the van. There are the statements of the prosecuter.

What we DON'T seem to have is the actual transcript of the trial. I want to read that.


45 posted on 01/26/2007 1:38:16 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: deport

His testimony was part of the case. I'm guessing it was both important, and damning to the BP agents, because most rebuttals dismiss his testimony both by claiming he couldn't see what he said he saw, and claiming that he got "immunity" so he must have committed crimes and was testifying just to save himself.

In other words, the people who argue that we must take the word of BP agents at face value because they are protecting us from illegals are telling us to dismiss the testimony of a BP agent because he's some crooked illegal-loving person just trying to save himself.

Which actually is mild compared to what they say about the BP agent who first brought this case to the attention of the FBI. They say THAT agent is in cahoots with the drug smuggler and is somehow going to get a payoff from the millions from a lawsuit.


46 posted on 01/26/2007 1:42:06 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
What we DON'T seem to have is the actual transcript of the trial. I want to read that.

I would too. Don't misunderstand me. If they are guilty then punishment is surely in order. But, if they are only partially guilty of an administrative violation, then the punishment should fit the crime.

47 posted on 01/26/2007 1:48:45 PM PST by libill (Socialism is communism with a happy face.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

Comment #48 Removed by Moderator

To: libill

THey are certainly guilty of filing a false report. But that wasn't what they were charged with, nor is that WHY they were charged.

The shot a guy who was running away from them. That is what they were charged for. The false report was used as evidence against them, because it is consistent with a coverup, as is the collection of casings and throwing them in the canal.

They may have had valid excuses for those acts, both of which violate procedure (a procedure put in place largely to help protect agents who do the right thing, by telling them exactly how to do things above-board so that they can be cleared).

But their actions are also consistent with what people would do if they were trying to cover up a crime.


49 posted on 01/26/2007 2:01:37 PM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Do you find it credible that a fleeing drug smuggler who was NOT being shot at, and had clearly gotten away from the agents, would turn around and point a gun at them, and then NOT SHOOT, even when they shoot at him?

Yeah it is credible. There is no indication that he clearly got away or thought he clearly got away. The fact is smugglers aren't very bright. He most likely didn't return fire because Ramos hit him first and didn't want get hit again so he continued to run into Mexico.

50 posted on 01/27/2007 12:43:14 AM PST by Ajnin (Neca Eos Omnes. Deus Suos Agnoset.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson