Policy supports agents--Written reports can only be made by investigators

Inland Daily Bulletin ^ | 6 FEB 2007 | Sara A. Carter

[radar101]

Two convicted former El Paso Border Patrol agents accused by the U.S. Attorney of not filing a report when they shot a Mexican drug smuggler were prohibited by their own agency's firearms policy from doing so, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.

Meanwhile, the government made public Monday its response to Border Patrol Agent Ignacio Ramos' October motion to reduce his sentence.

The response contends that Ramos and fellow agent Jose Alonso Compean knowingly shot an unarmed suspect, filed a false report, and that supervisors were not notified.

Attached to the motion were domestic violence arrest reports regarding three disputes Ramos had with his wife, Monica. Those documents were not admissible during the agents' trial. Ramos was not charged with a crime stemming from the incidents.

Ramos and Compean were convicted last spring for shooting Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican drug smuggler, in the buttocks on Feb. 17, 2005. The agents are now serving 11 and 12 years, respectively, in federal prison.

The agents were convicted partly due to the government's successful argument at trial that the two men failed to file a report about the shooting.

But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.

"Ensure that supervisory personnel or INS investigating officers are aware that employees involved in a shooting incident shall not be required or allowed to submit a written statement of the circumstances surrounding the incident," according to the firearms policy.

"All written statements regarding the incident shall be prepared by the local INS investigating officers and shall be based upon an interview of the INS employee."

INS refers to the Immigration and Naturalization Service, which oversaw the Border Patrol prior to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. The shooting policy has remained unchanged.

Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General documents obtained by the paper show that all nine agents on the scene at the time of the shooting - including two supervisors - knew shots had been fired.

Oscar Garcia, El Paso Border Patrol Union representative with Local 1929 and a firearms instructor, said that the Report of Apprehension or Seizure filed by Compean and Ramos on the day of the incident was accurate. Garcia stated that the agent's omission of the shooting in the drug seizure report followed firearms policy.

"Our own policy prohibits them from filing any report on the shooting incident," Garcia said. "The U.S. Attorney's assertion that they covered up the incident by not filing a report is ridiculous."

Johnny Sutton, the U.S. attorney for western Texas whose office prosecuted the case against the agents, contends the agents didn't report the shooting to supervisors who arrived on scene and knowingly lied about the incident.

"Ramos did not mention the shooting, and said nothing about the suspect having a weapon," Sutton said in an Aug. 11 press release.

Sutton was not immediately available for comment on Monday.

Both agents, however, told the Daily Bulletin the other agents and supervisors on the scene that day knew about the shooting, an assertion echoed in a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General memorandum written March 12, 2005, by Christopher Sanchez, an investigator with the Office of Inspector General.

"Investigation disclosed that the following Border Patrol agents were at the location of the shooting incident, assisted in destroying evidence of the shooting, and or knew/heard about the shooting: Oscar Juarez, Arturo Vasquez, Jose Mendoza, David Jaquez, Lance Medrano, Lorenzo Yrigoyen, Rene Mendez, Robert Arnold, and Jonathan Richards," Sanchez wrote.

Arnold and Richards were the two supervisors on the scene that day.

Richards was given a promotion shortly after the incident and testified against the agents. Agents Vasquez, Juarez and Jaquez were given immunity from prosecution to testify against Ramos and Compean.

The prosecution's objection to Ramos' motion to reduce his sentence, which was released Monday, goes against what was reported by the Office of Inspector General and contends the two former agents covered up the shooting on their own.

According to Assistant U.S. Attorney Debra Kanof, who prosecuted the agents and wrote the motion, some of the least credible evidence was when Ramos and Compean walked away from the scene.

"Instead of fulfilling (Ramos') duties as an agent and as a member of the response team, he walked side by side with Compean, who according to Compean's own testimony, bent down at least nine times to pick up his own spent casings."

Kanof also states in her response that Ramos never mentioned until the trial that he thought his life or Compean's was in danger, or that they thought the smuggler had a gun.

Ramos chose not to speak to investigators until his attorney was present, he told the Daily Bulletin. Compean, however, did wave his right to counsel and discussed the incident with investigators from the Office of Inspector General.

Contrary to Kanof's statement, several memorandums written by Sanchez, the investigating officer, attest that Compean believed his life was in danger.

"Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's left hand ... Compean explained that he thought that the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot him because he kept looking back at him as he ran away."

Staff writer Sara A. Carter can be reached by e-mail at sara.carter@dailybulletin.com, or by phone at (909) 483-8552.

[Lurker]

Another Federal prosecution which appears to be a tissue of lies.

L

[wolfcreek]

RAILROADED!

[Cyropaedia]

Amen.

[grjr21]

But U.S. Border Patrol firearms policy specifically states that agents are prohibited from filing a report if a shooting incident takes place and that only an oral report to supervisors is required.

I would've thunk that this is the  kinda thing that should've been picked up before the trial

[Carbonado]

If I didn't know better, I'd think that the real purpose behind this prosecution is to teach the American public NOT to stand up for themselves or you'll end up like these guys. It is just one more battle in the larger war against the American public by those forces that want unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal, to continue unabated. Show trials like this are designed to teach the public NOT to get involved, take a stand or even voice an opinion.

[FR_addict]

They recently had drug smugglers or terrorists with AK 47s on the border. The National Guard was not allowed to stop them.

I'm surprised our government got a jury to believe that a drug smuggler on the Mexican border would not have a gun. If nothing else, you would think the jury would have given these agents the benefit of the doubt. This was not an ordinary illegal alien. He had a van for heaven's sake.

The government said they didn't have time to check the van out before the incident. Those border patrol agents would know he was doing something illegal, whether it was human cargo, drugs or terrorism.

This case stinks.

Our government for some reason, Democrats and Republicans, have decided to give the illegals a free pass on their crimes for whatever reason. I guess for the Hispanic votes. Recently, in LA they said something about half the population of the jail are illegals.

If we need more Hispanics in the workplace, we should be increasing the number of legal workers and send the illegals back. The legal workers are much more likely to obey our laws, have a family life, whereas the illegals are mostly young men who do not live with family, have too much free time on their hands and often end up drunk in major accidents or committing crimes. I certainly don't mind an increase in working Hispanics in our country, just quit forcing us to accept this outrageous and dangerous situation of being overwhelmed with a large population of dangerous illegals.

Why don't any of the politicians agree to increase the number of legals who are checked out before being allowed into our country. I am so tired of the excuse, they will do the jobs American won't. This is just plain wrong and insulting. We have many out-of-work Americans who are willing to do these jobs. And if we need more workers in certain parts of the country, increase the number of legal immigrants.

[Truth29]

Now that one of the agents has been beaten up in prison, the message to the border patrol gets louder and louder - do not do anything to impede the flow of illegals. See nothing, hear nothing, do nothing.

[FR_addict]

"If I didn't know better, I'd think that the real purpose behind this prosecution is to teach the American public NOT to stand up for themselves or you'll end up like these guys. It is just one more battle in the larger war against the American public by those forces that want unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal, to continue unabated. Show trials like this are designed to teach the public NOT to get involved, take a stand or even voice an opinion."

I think you are right. We are slowly losing our rights, not the made-up rights of the left, but the ones guaranteed in our Constitution. Our property rights, and our ability to speak out against the government. One lawmaker in Arizona is trying to create a law against the minutemen on the border.

[calcowgirl]

Ping!

[iopscusa]

BINGO. IMO this is the answer to why are our Laws selectively enforced: "one more battle in the larger war against the American public by those forces that want unrestricted immigration, legal and illegal, to continue unabated".
Question is, what can be done to STOP THIS TRAVESTY?

[CharlesWayneCT]

Something's not right here. Ramos trained agents on gun policy, so he would have to have known the rules about filing reports.

So if at trial the prosecution actually argued that their NOT filing a report indicated a cover-up, he would easily have refuted that by showing this policy.

Further, has NOBODY who supports the BP agents even READ the official policy before this week? I would have thought anybody wanting to defend them would have had that policy and gone over it with a fine-toothed comb. After all, being a policy paper, it can't be classified secret or be hidden -- you can't dictate policy without publishing it for people to read.

So, why have none of the pro-BP folks read that policy, given we've been referencing it in our discussions for weeks now? I know why I didn't read it -- nobody provided a link, and nobody raised it as an issue.

I certainly would have thought the NBPC would have a copy of this policy, and would have long ago noticed this if it were true AND relevant.

So, either the entire pro-BP team is incompetent, this reporter has simply misunderstood the policy, or at trial this was NOT the argument of the prosecuters.

On the other point, the reporter is being deliberately misleading, and making false charges -- by her own words:

Kanof also states in her response that Ramos never mentioned until the trial that he thought his life or Compean's was in danger, or that they thought the smuggler had a gun.

OK, Kanof claims Ramos didn't say he thought his life was in danger. Then the reporter says:

Ramos chose not to speak to investigators until his attorney was present, he told the Daily Bulletin.

Hard to say what the point is, because I presume he DID talk to investigators once his attorney was present -- but it appears the reporter puts it here to suggest that the reason Ramos didn't say before trial that he felt in danger is because Ramos simply didn't talk to anybody before the trial -- which would be false. There's no other reason for her to put this in the story at this point.

Then she goes on:

Compean, however, did wave his right to counsel and discussed the incident with investigators from the Office of Inspector General.

Contrary to Kanof's statement, several memorandums written by Sanchez, the investigating officer, attest that Compean believed his life was in danger

That is NOT contrary to Kanof's statement. According to the reporter Kanof claimed RAMOS didn't mention his life was in danger, NOT Compean. I presume Kanof did not say "Compean didn't say his life was in danger", because if Kanof had said that, the reporter would have used it.

Claiming ONE person didn't say they were in danger is not a lie simply because the OTHER person did say they felt they were in danger. It's simple logic, the reporter knows this, and is trying to mislead her readers.

Which makes me at least want to get the original copy of the policy about shootings in order to verify she isn't lying about that as well.

My guess is, if the report is accurate at all, that the prosecuter did NOT specifically site the lack of a report, but rather a false report. Maybe policy is that if you have a shooting, you DON'T file your own report, instead you tell a supervisor, who will then interview you and write the report for you.

If so, then NOT telling the supervisor, and instead filing a report, would be a violation of the policy. The policy parts mentioned by the reporter in this article do NOT say that the agents should FILE a report that excludes mention of the shooting, it says they should NOT file a report.

Of course, we've had a discussion before which I can't remember the results of about whether the agents FILED a report or not.

[Iwo Jima]

Felling lonely?

[LIConFem]

[Truth29]

That could be made into a nice desk set on a base labeled "GOP" sarc/

[gubamyster]

ping

[righteousindignation]

are you being deliberately naive or just what are you doing?? Can you spell "railroad"?

[CharlesWayneCT]

I've been posting rebuttals to the arguments from WND for 3 weeks now, and nobody every refutes the rebuttals, they simply ask me if I'm "lonely", or "deliberately naive".

If I were a pro-BP agent person, I would be looking at how to answer these pretty easy debunkings of the WND charges, because at some point you need more than just a few pandering politicians to get this case looked at.

And it doesn't help when your major supporters at WND have to lie and misrepresent the facts in order to make it sound like there's a case for pardons.

[citizen]

Well, well, well...this just gets smellier and smellier doesn't it...if you are charged with properly following department policy, how can one win? Answer: Exhibit A - Agents Ramos and Compeon are in prison.

[citizen]

I believe your assessment of the motives behind these prosecutions [persecutions?] of BP agents and LEOs is correct.

[1rudeboy]

I would've thunk that this is the kinda thing that should've been picked up before the trial.

Lost in the static of this sort of news (as it trickles out) is the implicit indication that these two agents must've had the most incompetent defense attorneys on the face of the planet.

[citizen]

Lost in the static of this sort of news (as it trickles out) is the implicit indication that these two agents must've had the most incompetent defense attorneys on the face of the planet.

And I suspect they know the department from the inside and pretty much knew they were going down no matter what.

[1rudeboy]

I don't read it that way, because that means the judge, the prosecutor, the attorneys, and the jury all did.

[righteousindignation]

HUH?!

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"...that means the judge, the prosecutor, the attorneys, and the jury all did."

The jury only hears what the judge and prosecutor allow them to hear or how they can vote on what they do get to see.

How can anyone in the age of Scooter and the Duke players not understand that?

Michael Frazier

[1rudeboy]

The jury only hears what the judge and prosecutor allow them to hear or how they can vote on what they do get to see.

So we're back to the allowable inference that, the above being true, the defense attorneys played the part of potted plants.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
"So we're back to the allowable inference that, the above being true, the defense attorneys played the part of potted plants."

Or, it could mean that they were not allowed to present a proper defense because of restrictions and limitations put down by the Judge. We have the appellate process to address that little problem but your client has to survive being imprisoned with the people he used to bust.

I haven't checked yet. What Circuit Court of Appeals would be the first to deal with the case? Would it be the 9th?

Michael Frazier

[1rudeboy]

I haven't checked yet. What Circuit Court of Appeals would be the first to deal with the case? Would it be the 9th?

LOL--Don't you wish. The BP agents would be out in no time. Don't know much about our court system, I gather?

[RobRoy]

>>Two convicted former El Paso Border Patrol agents accused by the U.S. Attorney of not filing a report when they shot a Mexican drug smuggler were prohibited by their own agency's firearms policy from doing so, according to documents obtained by the Daily Bulletin.<<

Um, didn't this already go to court. What is up with this "court of public opinion" baloney?

[1rudeboy]

SOP for the losing side, if that side was the defense.

[brazzaville]

Good morning.
The BP agents would be out in no time. Don't know much about our court system, I gather?"

You show how uninformed you are when you say that. I don't know which appellate court would do the deed, but you can be sure the 9th Circus would not decide in favor of La Migra in this one. When it comes to cops, guns, God, family and flag, the 9th will never be on our side.

You didn't answer my question about the 9th hearing the case. Don't bother.
I'm curious now so I'll do my own research.

"Don't know much about our court system, I gather?"

Enlighten me.

Michael Frazier

[1rudeboy]

At best, the 9th Circuit would be torn between its antipathy for cops and sympathy for convicted felons, so it'd be a wash.

[getmeouttaPalmBeachCounty_FL]

I can't believe, after watching what our gov't is doing to protectors of this land, that anyone in their right mind would want to become a BP agent.

[UpAllNight]

--I've been posting rebuttals to the arguments from WND --

That is more than a full time job ...

[John Jorsett]

There are a lot of things emerging that call into question the competence of the defense attorneys. If this story is accurate, how could they have been unaware of the official policy?

[Tspud1]

I am curious if you really mean this "If I were a pro-BP agent person," Does that mean you are against the border patrol agents? Are you painting them all with the same brush?

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

This is old news meant only to fire up the uninformed. The fact that only an oral report is required was reported on the first or second news day. It's really not very germaine to the charge.

[raybbr]

I've been posting rebuttals to the arguments from WND for 3 weeks now, and nobody every refutes the rebuttals, they simply ask me if I'm "lonely", or "deliberately naive".

Do you want to know why? Because you sound as if you are content that two men, defending the sovereignty of this nation against an illegal alien smuggling drugs, are in prison. Because you defend the moral indefensible. Because reading your posts is like reading the justifications of a traitor - it doesn't matter to you that these men were defending the United States against the odds of the leadership of this country who want these illegals here. Because these two men have the backing of people like me who don't give a rat's ass if they didn't file their paperwork because they were defending us.

“We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” by George Orwell.

Oh, how that must offend you!

[CharlesWayneCT]

No, I just haven't found any other name for the defenders of the two agents that don't make the defenders a bit "antsy". They call themselves "pro-BP", and I like to defer to people with whatever name they choose.

I'm pro the rest of the agents, including the ones the "pro-BP" people call crooks and liars. Frankly, I'm pro these guys too, except for the criminal part, which I have to take on faith since I wasn't an eyewitness.

[CharlesWayneCT]

I'm hardly content (frankly, the idea that anybody would be content with ANY evil in the world is silly to me). I'd rather they be innocent of all charges, and be upholding the laws of our country and securing our borders.

But from the vantage point I have, the preponderence of the evidence suggests that these two, rather than upholding the law, decided to harrass an illegal, and when it went bad the illegally shot at him.

If true, I would hope NONE of us would support them -- sadly, I've had some argue that even if true the man deserved it and they should be free.

Fortunately, most people simply argue that the facts are not as they seem. Unfortunately, that often includes personally attacking every person who disagrees with their position, starting with the agents who turned the guys in, and the agents who testified against them, and the prosecuters, and the court clerk, the supervisors, every person in leadership in the BP, and the Bush administration, including Bush himself.

It's not enough to argue that people have misunderstood the evidence, misevaluated the truthfulness of the parties, and have chosen to believe the wrong people. No, it must be that people have done this purposely, and with malice, because of some fealty to the destruction of our borders, a love for drug dealers, or a desire for a quick buck or to avoid personal hardship.

But in all this, the two BP agents fealty to truth, justice, and the american way cannot be questioned. Hints of spousal abuse are hidiously made-up lies, reports of poor performance are manufactured, recounted stories of the men talking about "getting a mexican" are not to be believed, their failure to follow procedure excusable, their messing with the evidence understandable, their use of force justifiable, and their failure to report someone else's fault, not their own.

And so the sides are drawn. When in reality, the likelyhood is these guys (or maybe just Compean) DID decide to rough up an illegal, Compean DID slip doing so, scaring the guy into running again, Compean DID shoot at him in haste.

You know the funny thing -- Ramos may in fact have simply heard the shooting, and decided to shoot himself in expected self-defense. It could be Compean is a bad person, but not Ramos, but the two men have their fates intertwined.

[Razz Barry]

"Compean said that he began to shoot at Aldrete-Davila because of the shiny object he thought he saw in Aldrete-Davila's left hand ... Compean explained that he thought that the shiny object might be a gun and that Aldrete-Davila was going to shoot him because he kept looking back at him as he ran away."

In the Ballistics Data, the Army doctor said Aldrete-Davila's wound was consistent with being shoot while taking a left handed firing stance.

IMHO, the person who should be in prison, other than the drug smuggler, is Rene Sanchez. With his "lifelong" friendship with the smuggler and his willingness to help him in the persecution of two BP agents, he has to be dirty. This "friend" goes against everything Sanchez is supposed to uphold. Makes me wonder how many born and raised Mexicans are guarding our borders.

[Razz Barry]

Oh, forgot to add that Davila is left handed.

[mthom]

"Hints of spousal abuse are hidiously made-up lies, reports of poor performance are manufactured, recounted stories of the men talking about "getting a mexican" are not to be believed, their failure to follow procedure excusable, their messing with the evidence understandable, their use of force justifiable, and their failure to report someone else's fault, not their own.

And so the sides are drawn. When in reality, the likelyhood is these guys (or maybe just Compean) DID decide to rough up an illegal, Compean DID slip doing so, scaring the guy into running again, Compean DID shoot at him in haste.

You know the funny thing -- Ramos may in fact have simply heard the shooting, and decided to shoot himself in expected self-defense. It could be Compean is a bad person, but not Ramos, but the two men have their fates intertwined."

So any whispered indictments against this case are to be dismissed but whispers against the agents, even scenarios you made up just now, are probable and are being ignored by people here?