Posted on 01/26/2007 10:08:51 AM PST by SwinneySwitch
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ok, debunk this exert from the rebuttal:
An Army surgeon at William Beaumont Army Medical Center removed a bullet fragment from the drug smuggler's right thigh on March 16, 2005. At 7:45 p.m. that evening, Christopher Sanchez, an investigator with the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Inspector General,took Aldrete-Davila and the bullet fragment to his personal residence for the night. This negligent action broke the chain of custody for this vital piece of evidence. The following day, Christopher Sanchez submitted a bullet fragment to the Texas Department of Public Safety for testing. The report concluded that "[t]he copper-jacketed bullet was fired from a barrel having six lands and grooves inclined to the right. The manufacturer of the firearm that fired the copper-jacketed bullet is unknown, but could include commonly encountered models of 40 S&W caliber FN/Browning, Beretta, Heckler & Koch, and Ruger pistols." During the testing of the bullet fragment, the lab technicians destroyed all traces of DNA on it, eliminating the possibility of proving that it came from the drug smuggler's body. These careless actions needlessly cast suspicion on this aspect of the prosecutions case.
They didn't need DNA from the bullet, it was taken out of his body. Unless you think that Davilas was a body double.
Or maybe the suggestion (and it's only a suggestion here, you've really said nothing about what you were TRYING to prove with this section, other than that someone didn't do good police work) is that they replaced the bullet from his body with a different bullet that would trace back to Ramos.
Except that nobody is disputing that Ramos shot at the guy (and hitting him wasn't a criteria for their criminal charges). And if they switched bullets, they did a lousy job, because the bullet was inconclusive to match with the gun (which again didn't matter because nobody disputes that Ramos shot at the fleeing suspect).
So what exactly is this supposed to "rebut"? What does not having a "good chain of evidence" for the bullet do to the case against Ramos and Compean, which is based on their own testimony that they shot at the guy.
BTW, I'm not even certain anybody was trying to keep a "chain of evidence", nor am I certain that an investigator holding the bullet "violated the chain of evidence" although to my untrained mind it could.
And in fact, the summary of your section spells out the entire problem with the pro-BP crowd: "These careless actions needlessly cast suspicion on this aspect of the prosecutions case."
Except "needlessly" is more to the point "meaninglessly".
But Ramos wasn't the only, OR the first, to shoot at him. Compean shot first, 14 times, and never hit him. If getting HIT is what stopped him from firing, he would have fired at Compean. IF getting shot at made him give up and run again, he wouldn't have turned around AGAIN to "point at" Ramos.
And if he wasn't going to shoot, why would he pull the gun at all? Never point a gun if you aren't ready to use it.
You don't have to be bright to know that if you point a handgun at an officer, they aren't going to put down their weapons and run away, they are going to SHOOT you.
And everybody knows that if a drug smuggler points a gun, they are going to shoot. After all, if perps regularly pointed guns at cops without shooting, then the BP agents would have no justification for shooting the guy for simply pointing a weapon at him.
You stated the rebuttal was easily debunked. You haven't debunked anything. Did Christopher Sanchez break the chain of custody of did he not? Did he take the smuggler to his house or did he not? Did the lab destroy the DNA on the bullet or did it not? If none of these statements are true then provide the relevenat facts. This is how you debunk something.
Not necessarily. It's not a law of physics that you have to shoot back when you are being shot at.
IF getting shot at made him give up and run again, he wouldn't have turned around AGAIN to "point at" Ramos.
According to Ramos and the Doctor that extracted the bullet, Aldrete didn't stop and turn around. His body was bladed which occurs when a person tries to run and shoot at something behind them.
And if he wasn't going to shoot, why would he pull the gun at all? Never point a gun if you aren't ready to use it.
He probably was going to shoot and chose not to for reasons only known to Aldrete.
You don't have to be bright to know that if you point a handgun at an officer, they aren't going to put down their weapons and run away, they are going to SHOOT you.
These people point guns at law enforcement all the time and don't shoot. It has happend to me. It happens all the time on the border. They even come after armed agents with rocks and pointy sticks. Ramos' story is entirely plausible.
And everybody knows that if a drug smuggler points a gun, they are going to shoot.
There all kinds of reasons why a smuggler might not shoot. Campeanos stated that he saw a gun. All he needed was to see the gun, he didn't have to wait until Aldrete started shooting at him. I imagine that getting shot at changed Aldrete's mind about shooting at Campeanos.
After all, if perps regularly pointed guns at cops without shooting,
It happens all the time.
then the BP agents would have no justification for shooting the guy for simply pointing a weapon at him.
All these situations are not the same. The main ingredient here is fear of one's life or that of another. In the Ramos/Campeanos case the events happened very quickly. They had split seconds to make a decision, shoot or don't shoot. They percieved a threat and feared for their safety and took action before Aldrete could fire. It's rediculous to expect Ramos and Campeanos to wait to be shot at first before they return fire. In my case I chased a smuggler back across the border. They were in a Suburban and they were about 100 yards away. The passenger leaned out of the window and pointed a gun at me. Since they were so far away and in a moving vehicle, I didn't feel they could hit me even if they shot first. In addition I had plenty of time to get cover, arm myself with a scoped M4 and prepare for an attack. Even though I could have justified shooting the passenger I didn't do it because I wasn't in fear of my life. I also had plenty of time to react which is something that Ramos and Campeanos did not have.
What did they rebut?
Not allowing a suspect in another alleged crime to testify because of that investigation denies due process to these BP agents, does it not?
Other BP agents not being allowed to testify on behalf of the BP agents because it might jeporadize another investigation denies due process to these BP agents, does it not?
I don't trust Sutton (Bush's boy from his Texas days) or this AG or his Justice Dept. on matters regarding our borders or immigration. Or little else for that matter.
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.