I’m sorry, but you are apparently ignorant of this aspect of the case. You should take some time to educate yourself before commenting further on his injuries.
*********************************
It also needs to be noted that it has never been shown that he was shot by Campean and Ramos ,, he continued to run strongly after turning back on the agents in what could be called a firing pose... the wounds he had were severe as the bullet traveled ... my guess is that it was a “.38 super” round from whoever owned the 700#+ of marijuana that he lost in the desert and not a round from BP weaponry.
So one guy tries to convince me that the fact that Ramos’s shot went from left to right proves the drug smuggler was turning to shoot at him.
And you are arguing that he wasn’t shot at all.
At least you are two different people. WND tried to argue those to things as facts in the SAME ARTICLE once. “The bullet trajectory proves he was shot while turning, and there’s no evidence he was shot at all”.
In fact, the bullet was matched by ballistics testing.
However, WND, in it’s zeal to defend the BP agents, printed deliberately misleading stories to confuse people like you.
In this case, there were two tests. The first is a cheap and easy test used to ELIMINATE” broad classes of handguns. If you can eliminate the type of gun used by the BP agents, you don’t have to check the actual bullets.
However, the first test DID match the type of gun. That test of course did NOT prove the bullet matched Ramos’ gun, because that test is not meant to prove that.
So WND wrote a story which said “the ballistic test does not show bullet came from Ramos’ gun”. Which is literally true, the 1st test did not, but the way they used that was to suggest that there was no test which matched the gun.
In fact, a second tests was done, the bullet did match, and Ramos’s defense stipulated to that fact for the trial, obviating the need to pay an expert to come to the court and testify that it was his bullet.
Some mistakenly think that the lack of testimony proves there was no evidence, and when they are told they are wrong they insist that Ramos’ attorney was somehow incompetent to not challenge the test (because they are confused by the WND article).
If there was any doubt about the bullet testimony, it would have been included in the appeal.
BTW, the crime they were charged with was shooting at the guy, not hitting him. Note that Compean got more time than Ramos, even though Ramos hit him and Compean did not.
So in fact you are wrong about the evidence, and also have fallen for a false argument which has no consequence in any case regarding the trial and conviction.