Posted on 07/17/2007 5:37:55 AM PDT by BGHater
Who all is on this committee now?
If you hear something, please let me know.
good point
Boy I hope you never find a time in your military career when you don't go 100% by the book because you will someday be judged by the same standard by which you judge others.
BTW he was not shot in the back, he was shot in the side which was consistent with the testimony that he had turned and pointed a weapon at them. Maybe you can explain how a fleeing felon can be shot in the side when he is supposed to be running away from the cops? If he was fleeing and not pointing a weapon or otherwise posing a threat to the officers, then he would have been shot in the back. He wasn't. Get your facts straight.
I found it http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
They claimed he did represent a threat to them, which is why a weapon was used.
If this were in rural Midwestern America, and the person shot an American citizen, we'd all be up in arms about jackbooted-thugs. But because the victim was an illegal alien, we want him shot like a dog?
The "victim" was an "unlicensed pharmacist" i.e., a drug dealer who was smuggling drugs into this country. Since he escaped, we have no way of knowing if he was armed or not or what action he took when confronted by the BP. Perhaps he was armed or made a gesture or action that could have been interpreted that way. You seem so willing to believe a drug smuggler's version of events than law enforcement's.
Should be interesting to see which tact they take.
A jury weighed the credibilities, and decided they believed the smuggler rather than the officers who tried to cover up their crime. It's called falsus in uno.
And what were the crimes they were convicted of?
Hell our presidents have pardoned more drug dealers than patrol agents. I would bet you money on that.
The jury was not given all the information necessary to make that decision about credibility. The judge prohibited the defense from bringing up this guy's past and the fact that he had been arrested for drug smuggling even after this incident. BTW juries are composed of people who are generally too stupid to find an excuse or reason to get out of jury duty. And many jurors lie about whether or not they have prejudged a case just so that they can sit on a jury, especially in a high profile case, since there is the chance to hit the lottery with a book deal.
A prosecutor with an agenda and an unlimited budget can usually find a way to convict anyone of anything. If the Duke case had gone to trial, I suspect those white boys would have been convicted regardless of the lack of evidence. The jury would have ignored the forensic evidence and found a way to believe the lying prostitute.
Ramos, 37, and Compean, 28, were sentenced in October to 11- and 12-year prison terms for shooting Mr. Aldrete-Davila in the buttocks after he refused to stop his van and fled on foot into Mexico after abandoning 743 pounds of marijuana. He was located in Mexico by Homeland Security officials and returned to the U.S. under a grant of immunity to testify against the agents.
"The only way to conclude that Agents Ramos and Compean should have been prosecuted is if the word of the known drug smuggler is given more credence than the sworn statements of two law-enforcement officers," said Mr. Bonner, whose union represents all 11,000 of the agency's nonsupervisory personnel.
Begins on page 67THE COURT: All right. I need Agent Compean and -- I'm sorry -- Ignacio Ramos and Jose Alonso Compean to come on up and approach.
Gentlemen, although the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 requires a Court to impose a sentence within the applicable guideline range in an ordinary case, it does not eliminate this Court's discretion.
It is my duty, as Judge, to assess a fair and reasonable sentence by looking at many things that bear on the outcome, formed by my -- from my vantage point, as a person on a day-to-day basis who imposes sentences on many, many people. Some of the factors that I can consider include the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendants, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, to provide just punishment for this offense, to afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, the need to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records, the need to provide restitution, victim misconduct, susceptibility -- susceptibility to abuse or retaliation in prison. However, though this may apply to Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 11, in the case of Mr. Compean, and to Counts 2, 3, 8, 9 and 12, in the case of Mr. Ramos, it cannot apply to the mandatory minimum ten-year sentence that was imposed by Congress.[my bolding]
So, having said that, based on the information available to me, the circumstances of this case, and your particular circumstances, Mr. Ramos, to impose a sentence that is sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet the goals of the sentencing, considering all of the factors listed, this Court will find that -- first of all, the Court is going to grant a downward departure based on victim conduct and susceptibility to abuse or retaliation in prison. And the Court is going to grant a variance, based on the nature and circumstances of the offense, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of that offense, and promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records, the Court will find that a fair and reasonable sentence in this case is 12 months and one day on Counts 2, 3, 8, 9, and 12, to run concurrently, and 120 months on Count 4, to run consecutive to those Counts 2, 3, 8, 9, and 12. There will be three years of supervised release on a reporting basis. Once you are released, you remain under this Court's supervision for three years. During that time you have to obey all the standard terms and conditions adopted by this Court. You can commit no further crimes against the United States or any state or local government.
You will be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. You will be ordered to refrain from the unlawful use of controlled substances, and to submit to drug testing as required by the probation department. You will be ordered to participate in an anger management and counseling program approved by the probation office, and all the other standard terms and conditions. There will be a $2,000 fine. There will be a $100 special assessment per count, for a total of $600. And the Court will make a recommendation for a facility as close to El Paso as possible.
In saying all of that, I do want to make sure that I'm clear that the Court is overruling the objections regarding destruction or fabrication, the plus two, plus the plus two objection regarding abuse of a trusted position. Anything further in the sentencing of Mr. Ramos?
MS. STILLINGER: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything further in the sentencing of Mr. Ramos before I proceed to Mr. Compean?
MS. KANOF: Your Honor, was the Court going to impose restitution?
THE COURT: Let me look at that in just a minute, and then I'll go over that, also.
Regarding Mr. Compean, again, based on the information available to me in the circumstances of this case and your particular circumstances, Mr. Compean, to impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary to meet the goals of sentencing, considering all of those factors, the Court is going to first of all find that -- is going to grant a downward departure, based on susceptibility to retaliation or abuse in prison.
The Court is going to grant a variance, based on the nature and circumstances of this offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, in order to promote respect for the law, provide just punishment for the offense, afford adequate deterrence to future criminal conduct, and avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities among defendants with similar records, the Court will find that a fair and reasonable sentence in your case, Mr. Compean, is 24 months of incarceration on Counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. Those will run concurrently. And 120 months on Count 5, to run consecutive thereto.
There will be three years of supervised release on a reporting basis. Once you are released, you do remain under this Court's supervision for three years.
During that time you can -- must comply with all the standard terms and conditions adopted by this Court. You shall not commit another federal, state, or local crime. You will be prohibited from possessing a firearm or other dangerous weapon. You will be ordered to refrain from the unlawful use of controlled substances and to submit to drug testing as required by the probation department.
There will be a $2,000 fine and a $100 special assessment per count, for a total of $600. And again, the Court will make a recommendation for a facility as close to El Paso as possible.
I need the attorneys and probation to approach regarding the issue of restitution real quick.
(Off-the-record bench discussion.)THE COURT: All right. Before I proceed to the issue of restitution -- come on back up, Mr. Compean, and Mr. Ramos.
[end snip]
Well, Borders Guards are not above the law. They committed a crime, and tried to cover it up, lied, and then refused a deal.
******************************************
BULL!!
They informed their superiors and made a full and complete oral report of the event, they followed procedures, for you to say that they committed a crime and covered it up ignores the facts ,, Sutton withheld exculpatory evidence and lied to senators who were looking into this to short circuit their inquiry...
I will, and you do the same for me, okay?
No --- that's called "obeying your supervisors who were there on the crime scene".
If this were in rural Midwestern America, and the person shot an American citizen, we'd all be up in arms about jackbooted-thugs. But because the victim was an illegal alien, we want him shot like a dog?
You mean a "drug-smuggling illegal foreigner attempting to shoot a U. S. law enforcement officer".
And why was this dog's drug-smuggling activities, that were taking place even during the trial, withheld from the jury??? And just why has this drug-smuggling lying perjurious dog not been rounded up and prosecuted??? This was a grave miscarriage of justice and George Bush and his lapdogs know it.
Fox guarding chicken coop.................
Ramos and Campion claim that their supervisor watched them pick up the spent shells and assumed that he was making the report. They did not know that the fleeing suspect had been hit.
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.